Since UI feature suggestions are heading towards finality, I thought I'd bring this one up as it's an idea I've had for a while and others may agree.

Let me start by saying that the current dimensions should, of course, remain as they are. This suggestion is more to do with how the panel itself is laid out, and the possibilities for additional buttons to be included.

I'd suggest adding 1 extra button, bringing the total to 20. This would allow for the addition of a "save replay" button, and (possibly) a "show skills used" button (if this feature gets implemented, that is). Here's a mockup:



Note that the "load replay" folder button is now paired with a "save replay" counterpart, and the "show skills used" button is paired with CPM.

Thoughts?

a Laser Blaster could easily create Swimmer backroutes.

Easily?? I'd like to see that in action!

In the case of Nepster/Namida for example they can see the rough effort it takes to implement this inside the code and we always need to consider the ammount of complexity we add to the game to the actual gain we get from the new features.

So a bunch of people simply cheering "Yay we want that!" is not automatically an automatic implement. The code, gain in functionality and complexity issue needs to be examined as well and this a seperate matter from the popular vote.

Absolutely, which is why namida (and other devs) ultimately have the power of veto.

Some ideas are less valuable than others, this we can agree on. If an idea keeps coming up again and again though, whilst it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be implemented purely on popularity (we can also agree here), it perhaps does mean that it's worth further investigation into its complexity:reward ratio, as opposed to outright dismissal.

It also describes a dilemma:

- Not changing at all is problematic (aging due to lack of movement)
- Changing is problematic (aging due to "ignorant surgery" - aka just changing stuff regardless of the original design goal with much understanding and also adding redundant features)

This seems an unnecessarily negative view of the concept of progress. It's possible for things not to change and to remain beautiful and relevant, whilst it's also possible for things to change very much for the better (where a lack of change would have resulted in stagnation). These things can't be held up to a universal standpoint; rather each idea must be taken upon its own merit.

As a result, new features must bring serious improvements to usability or need to introduce new bahaviors fitting to the game which cannot yet be easily replicated. Otherwise we just make the program more complex without having much return as a result.

Agreed. Further to this, discussion and testing is often necessary to establish usability; unique concepts that can be simulated often bring about their own un-simulatable side-behaviours, advantages (and disadvantages, sure) as well.

with talismans and the ability to make seperate challenge versions of the levels I am not sold. It is by far not a nessesity to have challenges as side-quests!

Not necessary, sure; but - a lot of fun, and builds enjoyable re-play value into a level/pack. It's not for everyone, of course, but those of us who enjoy it are bound to notice when it's missing (hence the repeated suggestion and subsequent support in favour of it).

"Keeping the game clean" is important as well, I totally agree. Thankfully, when designing levels we have the option (and indeed the luxury) to make them exactly as we see fit.

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.

Brilliant idea

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.

Trickier to implement, but could also work!

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.

Another brilliant idea

This could be used where navigating back to the main exit isn't part of the Talisman.

---

I still think that collectible Bronze, Silver and Gold in-level Talismans would make a neat idea for NeoLemmix, without presenting too many (if any) of the "complexity" issues alluded to by Icho.

@kaywhyn

Yeah, I read that post. Hence why I think tan should definitely fix it!

No, it means that (as far as physics are concerned) the time to "comprehensively address the possibilities that the engine presents" has passed and it is now time to focus on implementing the remaining ideas that have been accepted (or at least, discussions on have been opened), so that NL's physics can be declared finalized eventually.

Now would be the time to "comprehensively address the possibilities that the engine presents" for UI features, if that's what you want to call it, on the other hand.

I thought you'd called time on UI suggestions as well...?

From the rules topic:

Quote

4. Please do not create polls in your topics. I will add polls as I see necessary, that ask questions that get the kind of answers I'm interested in finding out.

Just to clarify - does this only apply to suggestion topics, or should I not be creating polls at all??

The shimmier (and slider in the other case) is visually completely outside the level. Every user would expect a lemming who is visually completely outside the level to die as that's a basic rule in NL.

Conceded.