If you want to watch some of the stream without getting spoiled, I'm posting the levels here, so you can have a look already (you can also find them on github if you prefer: https://github.com/geoo89/LixD/tree/geoo-levelpack). Simon has already played some of the levels, I'm not sure if he's planning to skip those or demonstrate the solutions.
Many levels are short (more than half have 5 skills or less), and they are sorted thematically rather than by difficulty. In particular, there is a rank exploring ideas around the wrap around mechanic, and one about dynamic crowd control.

I will make a proper release thread after the stream, with backroute fixes for any levels that may have backroutes. If you don't plan on watching Simon's stream, maybe you can hold out until the proper release

Saturday would work great for me. Sunday I got some other plans already.

Given some recent (and not so recent) requests for various L2 graphics, I thought it'd be good to have all of them in one place, and hopefully easy to find.
All of this is more than a decade old, but I'm not sure I've ever posted an archive of all the L2 graphics that I managed to extract, so here we go.

Tribe specific graphics:

• l2gfx: 16x8 pixel pieces that level maps are composed of (including palette in top row)
• l2tiles: Arrangements of the above into sensible terrain pieces
• l2obj: Object graphics and animation
• l2ss: Special tribe specific animations

Other graphics:

• vlemms: all lemmings graphics (using cavelem palette -- in the game, these are recolored according to tribe palette)
• intern: additional universal animations
• cutscenes: Graphics from various cutscenes

If there's interest, I can dig around some more and try to find some relevant code pieces that we used for extraction.

Update to Dangerous Goods to fix Simon's Wurschtelei (and other potential flinging solutions). Basically changes the fling bomber into a normal bomber, and the other minor changes are just consequences of that.

I'm still contemplating reworking Origami Master as most people don't use the jumper and make the execution harder and messier, but I'll need to think about how to do this some more.

I tried the game without the flaunting mechanic (same-rank mechanic), and at the end each hand is played openly. It felt like the game played quite similarly to before. (Probably needs more rounds to really determine that though. We also played single-deck, which made the game feel different by itself.)
The rule set is marginally simpler, but the last round still needs a similar amount of explaining because it is quite different from normal rounds:

• Cards are played openly
• No garbage allowed
• No undercutting
• No limit on the number of cards played

Maybe there's a more elegant way to allow a bit more play after the pile is depleted without the possibility to just sneak all your garbage home at the end. But the normal limit on the number of cards you can play (somebody must be able to challenge) can be quite a big disadvantage to the very last player.

Quote from: kaywhyn on December 03, 2023, 11:24:12 PM
Solved both of geoo's Lix entries. Replays attached I don't smell any backroutes here!

Spoiler

Dangerous Goods - Not a difficult level, just one I struggled with only because I'm still learning new things about Lix. For example, I didn't realize that was a spring at the bottom and that one can use the steam to get flung upwards. After a while, I tried platforming over the trap at the bottom and that's how I saw what actually happens when I sent a Lix over there. When I saw where she landed my reaction was "oh, that's how you get a Lix onto the middle platform from the right!" Before I even discovered that, I was thinking perhaps the way is to bash and then bomb around the middle so to release the other Lix to get into the other Lix's basher tunnel.

Just out of curiosity, would the solution still work even without a fling bomber? It seems the fling isn't necessary at all. I know that the bomber holes are different for the skills, I just wonder if the solution could work with either skill

Origami Master - Ok, this one was very frustrating on the execution. I initially had trouble conceptualizing how the containment in the middle should work, but after a while I figured it out. Even with this, this took so many tries to get right because I either get one too many killed by the trap or at least 1 Lix kept escaping one of the flinging objects. In the end, I used the jumper on the final Lix in the train since she got killed by the trap.

With this level, I was like wow, geoo sure loves his Merge Sort puzzles The timing had to be right and assigning the correct Lixes the skills is very crucial here!

Both solutions are intended, though you made your life much harder on the second one (as long as you place the second blocker well, execution should have a decent amount of leeway):

Spoiler

Building while the crowd is already in the pit slightly stretches out the crowd, giving you less leeway. If instead you send one lix ahead to jump over the trap and build while the crowd is still trapped behind the blocker, things should work smoothly as long as you have at most 4 layers of lix and place the second blocker precisely (the replay tweaker is super helpful for the latter).
I wonder how I could change the level to make this clearer. Initially I had pre-built the bridge and it was just a 4 skill level, maybe that's better?

But yes, I like these style of levels, and I the pack I'm working on I have a full rank of similar stuff coming up...

Dangerous Goods should also work with the normal bomber, haven't tested though. If certain kinds of backroutes crop up I might change it.

As Proxima mentioned, Continuum Hypothesis is a backroute. Given my solution, it could be fixed by cutting a bomber, but my hunch is that this would eliminate Proxima's solution (which I expect is a variation that's less tight on execution).

Spoiler

I assume you're compressing between two blockers, and bombing one of them?

For Eye of the Needle, your solution differs from the intended one quite significantly. Removing the feature that Simon exploited on the left, or bumping up the requirement to 8/10 (at the cost of slightly trickier execution) could work here.

Edit Simon 2024-02-05: I've split this discussion into a separate topic for Eye of the Needle.

QuoteBut I believe (untested) that same-type challenging is crucial to the endgame. In the middle game, you have two tasks: Get points with smaller sneaks and challenges, and build your one true magnificent flaunt for the endgame. That flaunt can be even of a weaker type because the rule of same-type challenging protects it. It introduces a separate direction of hand management into Sneak.

This is what I'm not sure about. I have only played it with the same-type challenging, I think it would be interesting to see if/how the dynamics change without it. I don't see any clear argument in favor or against it.
The main reason I suggested trying to cut it was to simplify a game while cutting a mechanic what I perceived to be weak (at least mid-game).

QuoteAnd this build-up of tension -- you have exactly one flaunt during the game, at the very end -- goes in a great way with your proposed cut of mid-game flaunting for simplicity. It sounds wonderful on paper.

Downside: Same-type challenging is a special rule only for the very end, with unclear purpose. If somebody happens to make the same type of combination, you're hosed while everybody else's flaunt stands. That will feel random. If we remove the restriction of same-type challenging, more people get hosed. It will still feel random; will it feel better?

That's not really how it works in practice. Why would you build up to a big flaunt? You're better off using your good cards to catch a sneak (or at least sneak in the hope of catching someone else's cards), rather than just bringing them home. This is what happened in practice: good stuff was played to sneak or catch sneaks, while at the end the flaunts were just cobbled together with what was left. Unless you reward the flaunting at the end (everybody flaunts and the same time and the winner takes it all?), I don't see what you described happening at all.

QuoteWorthless leftover cards seem like the cleanest design, both for easy bookkeeping and to avoid extra rules like no-undercutting. I really want to make that work. I'm open to switching to negative points when worthless cards don't produce the desired strategic late-game decisisons.

Negative points for leftover cards was probably the single most significant rule change, and affected the whole dynamics near the end of the game. Our games were too close anyway to compare stacks by height, so you had to count. But we just removed the same amount from our point stack and then counted. Most played had nothing left anyway, I don't remember if anyone ever had more than 2 cards left. I think the negative points at the end are quite natural (and similarly the no undercutting rule), and adds barely any complexity. I don't think it's unelegant. It brings a great improvement to the game dynamics at (in my opinion) pretty much no cost.

I really found it interesting how the dynamics change as the game progresses, pretty easy-going at the beginning, people get more agressive as the game progresses, some exciting maneuvres as the pile draws to an end, and completely different dynamics in the final round. I don't see this happening if remaining cards don't score negative. The pressure to get rid of cards really adds to the later game.

After the rounds from the last days, the cutting of flaunting discussed above is really the only change I can think of at this point that seems promising (but for the reduction of complexity, I don't expect much of an impact on the game dynamics).

The last two nights we played a couple of rounds with two different rulesets, 4-7 handed, double standard deck. Initially, I adjusted the base rules as follows:

• Card ranks: Straight flush, n of a kind, straight, flush, high card (aka garbage). Rationale: To turn a single card into a hand, there are 4/2 outs for straight flush, 7/3 outs for n of a kind, 16/8 outs for straight, 25/12 outs for flush (double deck/single deck). Similar heuristics apply for going from 2->3 cards, and this only breaks down for very large hands. (For single deck, I believe a very long straight is more likely than a very large flush.) It's not a 100% formal argument, but sounds plausible.
• You cannot flaunt garbage. You can flaunt or sneak single cards.
• Even if you flaunt or sneak, you draw a card after your turn. (After rather than before is important, because drawing a card clearly indicates that you're ending your turn.)
• After the last card has been drawn, everyone gets one more chance to flaunt (you can still decide to skip, if you want to). After that flaunting round the game is over.
• The limit on cards does not apply for flaunting, only for sneaking: You can flaunt more cards than any of the other players have. The rationale here is that players who get a late last turn may have saved a decent hand (e.g. 5 card straight), but everyone else has already got rid of the last cards. At the same time, you cannot abuse this because you can't flaunt garbage.
• You cannot undercut a flaunt in order to get rid of cards (you can only play if you beat the highest hand on the table).
• After the game is concluded, cards that remain on a player's hand count as negative points.

The last rule is crucial: This discourages bunkering, at least in the later stages of the game. The rounds we played were very dynamic and fun. The endgame was an important part of the game and quite strategic. My concern that you get huge sneaks just before the flaunting round didn't materialize. If people realized they had too much garbage on their hand, they sometimes challenged with garbage just to get rid of cards, but I don't see this as an issue.

But we when we reflected on the rules, we got conscious again of the issue that challenging feels better than sneaking. Thus, we played with an adjustment:

When a sneak or flaunt goes unchallenged, instead of drawing 1 card, you draw the amount of cards that you sneaked/flaunted. This makes mid-game flaunting slightly useful, and sneaking more enticing. People were more encouraged to sneak (especially many cards), at the same time people were also encouraged to challenge to deny the reward. However, the former seemed to outweigh the latter, thus making sneaking more attractive overall.

In the end, I think this rule set is pretty solid. The only unelegant aspect I see is that mid-game flaunting is still not that useful.

So I had the following other ideas (which we didn't have the chance to try out though):

• To reduce complexity, I considered cutting flaunting entirely: During the last round, cards still have to be played openly, but the leading player does not determine what kind of hand can be played (so like with sneaking, best overall hand wins). You are still not allowed to undercut in order to get rid of your cards. The hand type constraint at the end of the game is interesting, but I don't know if it's a positive or negative thing.
• Before we thought of the rule of drawing n card if your sneak/flaunt goes unchallenged, I suggested allowing players to draw 2 cards after a sneak (regardless of outcome). But I think the rule we ended up playing with is more interesting. Sneaking is encouraged, and I don't know if challenging is still better than sneaking. But if you perceive that it still is, sneaking/flaunting could be sweetened further by allowing to draw 2 cards after your turn, and n+1 if your sneak is unchallenged.
• We didn't try the suggestion from the previous post (not challenging is rewarded with drawing a card). It sounds interesting, but my main concern is that the pile will get depleted too fast like this. Especially near the end of the game, if there are many players, you last chance to sneak may be while there are still 20 cards on the pile, because next time it is your turn the pile is gone.

Yeah, but in practice there's no real need to recompress levels because L2 also accepts them when they are uncompressed.

QuoteEDIT: I know for a fact that your website at geoo.digibase.ca DID have the latest version of PCL2STAT anyway, because I remember still being able to download it from your site back in 2020~2022 or whenever it was last up. I think it was maybe a separate zip archive instead of bundled like the old "_full" one?

Are you trying to say that such a feature exists, or that whatever the latest version was, it was on my site?

Looking through the forum, PMs and emails (all of which date back to 2005), I have not found any reference to an update that would include level resizing, so I doubt that such a version was ever made in the end. The only time after 2009 that ccexplore uploaded a version of PCL2STAT was bundled with GuyPerfect's editor: https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=1089.msg33757#msg33757 (I found an archive with the same filename on my computer, but it only includes skills.exe) I would be highly surprised though if he silently updated PCL2ED without mentioning it anywhere and including the update in that download.

I see. Not sure why it's needed as the previous version ships with the decompressed files anyway, but then I haven't used it in ages.
Digging around my old laptop a bit I found a version from December 2009 (as opposed to October 2009), which seems to include the decompression feature.

Attached is also the source code.

EDIT: Found the linux files too.

These are the archives I found on my computer, can't test them because I'm not on Windows anymore.

They are the same files I sent you via PM a while ago, are you missing some DLLs or something? If you have some error messages about missing DLLs, I can try to look around.

(I've also been toying with the idea of writing a Tiled extension for L2, but I haven't found the time to actually do it...)

I didn't have much time to play through the levels, but at least I managed to finish all of the miniatures and half of the Rule 1 levels.
I've especially liked the levels focused around shimmiers so far!

As for the solutions to my levels, everyone solved Fast Food Forest the intended way.
For Frog Clog, nobody has the intended solution, but all parts of my intended solution are featured in someone's solution. I'm happy to leave this level a bit more open-ended, as I also don't see any elegant fixes. It wasn't meant to be a hard level.
For Underground Club, good find there, kaywhyn, I'm surprised we all missed that! Your solution still features the part of the idea that I care most about, so I might just leave it in.

The level from the Cheapo days that immediately springs to mind (without being huge) is Insane Steve's "Tribute to Benny Hill". I don't remember if it had a 29:59 or 59:59 time limit, but the time limit was meant to serve as a hint. I just had a look at the Lix remake, and the intended solution takes about 20 min.

Long time ago I posted an idea on how to make levels where the time needed to solve is exponential in the level size (see last two paragraphs here). I made a Lix version (which I haven't released yet) that takes about 10 minutes to solve, but if I wanted I could make minor tweaks so it takes 100, 1000 or 10000 minutes (or really however long I want). It's not even huge, and only uses a single skill.

I think the main use case for pasting (and also copying) is the multiplayer chat, that's the only instance where I can remember missing it. Maybe level titles as well. The other minor nuisance is that you cannot move the text cursor, it's always at the end of the typing field. That's maybe a bigger issue than copying/pasting.
I guess these are the downsides of rolling your own custom code for these standard UI things...