Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Lix Main / Re: Organizing Multiplayer Levels: Tag System
« Last post by Simon on Today at 11:11:01 PM »
Thanks for the good rundown!

Yeah, Flopsy has added tags to a good chunk of levels. I believe nobody else has added any tags or thought of new meanings yet.

Here's a Unix pipeline to see all tags in use, and its output on 0.9.47:

Code: [Select]
ack -h TAG levels/ | sort -u
Code: [Select]
$TAG asymmetric
$TAG classic
$TAG compression
$TAG difficult
$TAG disjoint-union
$TAG fall-survival
$TAG few-skills
$TAG gimmick
$TAG long-play
$TAG max-si
$TAG multiple-hatch
$TAG rescue
$TAG short-play

Quote from: Flopsy
EDIT: I'll try to get a list of what tags I assigned to what multi level. Be probably wise to use this topic to keep track of tags while we get through the backlog

That should also be doable with some Unix magic. Tell me when you need it, and what exacly: For each level, list the tags? Or for each tag, list all levels in which the tag appears? I'm busy this week, but maybe it'll be cute distraction.

-- Simon
2
Lix Main / Re: Organizing Multiplayer Levels: Tag System
« Last post by Flopsy on Today at 10:46:00 PM »
compression - level requires compression of Lix crowds to filter through traps and minimise trap casualties

swingy - from what I understand, this is more of an all or nothing type of level, downward reduction would be a good example of this.

multiple-hatch - exactly what it says, it means each player has more than one hatch. Helps prewarn the player of this as well for the less observant.

disjoint-union - I'm sure this is self explanatory but this means that parts of the level of entirely sealed off to other segments of the level. Like Synchronised Lemming from Oh No More Lemmings.

max-si - means that the level has the max release rate, another thing nice for the player to be forewarned of.

gimmick - probably a very limited use tag but it generally applies to a level idea which is very unique and unmemorable. Like Charity Drive by Arty.

classic - the level resembles classic Lemmings gameplay or the level is reminiscent of a classic Lemmings level (without actually being exactly like it which Simon doesn't want)

rescue - usually hand in hand with multiple hatch but one hatch is completely doomed without assistance from other hatches or even the enemy Lixes. An example is Down With Frogs by Flopsy.

fall-survival - the level revolves around going down and the main obstacle is making the fall to the bottom safe.

crafty - a level with taxing-or-higher-difficulty route-building, and with lots of terrain to navigate in different possible hard ways, not necessarily with reacting to other players with different route building. But usually there is overlap; maps with hard route-building tend to have players react to other players via route choice.

asymmetric - the level is not symmetrical to the point where some hatches have advantageous positions over other hatches. eg. The Great Lix in the Sky by Amanda or Lucky Sevens by Flopsy....

chaotic - the level has a high degree of difficulty and very close proximity to enemy Lix hatches, could apply to a lot of levels really so maybe not a defining enough tag?

difficult - the level does not have an obvious solution in itself, so on top of the opposing Lixes, you have to also find the solution.

beginner - the level is more ideal for beginners to Lix who are still trying to familiarise themselves with the controls and chaos!

few-skills - the level has a very small skillset so skill assignments will be limited.

short-play

long-play (mentioned by Forestidia) - possibly means that the maps are either very quick or very long haul games.

attack-defense (already categorised by Rubix) - the map has a disjoint union but each side has Lixes which need to be saved and the opposing Lixes which prevent this. There is a section for each colour to be saved. NaOH's Arc is a good example of this type of level.

these are the ones I have been using and I have only looked at levels by the following authors so far

arty
amanda
steve
flopsy
geoo
raymanni
clam

EDIT: I'll try to get a list of what tags I assigned to what multi level. Be probably wise to use this topic to keep track of tags while we get through the backlog
3
Lix Main / Re: Organizing Multiplayer Levels: Tag System
« Last post by Forestidia86 on Today at 04:27:45 PM »
Which tags are currently in use? I ask since tagged levels can already be found via search.
4
All right, then let's make it Sunday, October 16th, unless many people prefer the Saturday.

-- Simon
5
Lix Multiplayer Dates / Re: Lix Campfire, Sun, Sep 25th, 16:00 UTC
« Last post by Simon on Today at 02:41:57 PM »
Yeah, this was largely spontaneous.

Happy to arrange another campfire when it suits you. It's even conceivable within the work week because 1-2 hours of discussion are less physically taxing than playing Lix for 3 hours. I'll be busy until Tue, Oct 4th, sometime after that would suit me. Thursdays are bad.

As I told geoo at the end: We don't need campfire every week, but it's really productive to catch up with everybody at least a couple times per year. We tend to bring things or nuances to the table that would fall aside in written discussion.

-- Simon
6
Lix Multiplayer Dates / Re: Lix Campfire, Sun, Sep 25th, 16:00 UTC
« Last post by Flopsy on Today at 02:24:37 AM »
I'm sorry I missed this, I would have joined if I wasn't working at the time and I didn't even know about it at the time it was going on. Would be interested on getting in on this if there is another one at some point though.
7
I can only play on Sunday 16th October sadly :lix-sick:
8
Loap / Re: Rendering issues - some help?
« Last post by geoo on September 26, 2022, 06:11:29 AM »
Quote
Thinking of another possible approach (somewhat based on Simon's idea using planes) - let's suppose I can come up with a list of prerequisites (eg. face A must be rendered before face B, face B and C must both be rendered before face D) - what is generally the most efficient way to translate these requirements into an ordered list? Keeping in mind that two faces may be neutral with regards to each other, but a third face might need to be drawn inbetween them (eg: A and B have no order preference to each other, but A must be drawn before C while B must be drawn after C).

Quote
The next keyword to websearch from there is: Topological sort, or directly on wikipedia. (Starts to sounds like geoo or another computer scientist could have pointed us there much quicker. :D)

Yep, that's exactly what I suggested a couple of posts ago x_x

Anyway, if you do want to do face sorting properly, it seems to me if you're doing pairwise comparisons for intersection like Simon is suggesting, you can then piece it together into a linear order by building a graph (the nodes are the faces, the edges are when a face is partially obscured by another face), and then doing a topological sort. (Note that in practice you might encounter cycles in this graph, e.g. if you have 3 triangles where each one obscures but also is obscured by another one.)

But back to Z-buffering and the Z-fighting issues that you had when using that approach: Why don't you make the blocks a tiny bit smaller (not enough to be visible, but enough to avoid z-fighting due to rounding errors) than a full grid unit?
9
Loap / Re: Rendering issues - some help?
« Last post by Simon on September 26, 2022, 02:53:43 AM »
As a mathematician (not as an engineer), the instinct is to complete your relation into a partial order: Compute the transitive closure by repeatedly adding the forced pairs (if A < C and C < B, then add A < B to your relation) until you can't add any more. Then websearch for an algorithm about partial orders; the task is to find a linear order a.k.a. total order that contains your partial order.

But problem: I don't know if we're wasting too much algorithmic time by first computing the transitive closure. Maybe there is a better way to work directly with the nontransitive relation that you have, a way that will still come up with a suitable total order. It's probably enough to assume that the transitive closure (that always exists) would, if we were to compute it, be cycle-free (and thus be a partial order).

When websearching for algorithms, include "partial order" as a search term nonetheless, or "extend partial order into total order", maybe you find useful things that still work.

Ad hoc, I found:
Partial-Order Planning
Linear Extension of a partial order. This looks like pure math, but refers to algorithms in reference #5.

The next keyword to websearch from there is: Topological sort, or directly on wikipedia. (Starts to sounds like geoo or another computer scientist could have pointed us there much quicker. :D)

-- Simon
10
Loap / Re: Rendering issues - some help?
« Last post by namida on September 26, 2022, 02:10:28 AM »
Thinking of another possible approach (somewhat based on Simon's idea using planes) - let's suppose I can come up with a list of prerequisites (eg. face A must be rendered before face B, face B and C must both be rendered before face D) - what is generally the most efficient way to translate these requirements into an ordered list? Keeping in mind that two faces may be neutral with regards to each other, but a third face might need to be drawn inbetween them (eg: A and B have no order preference to each other, but A must be drawn before C while B must be drawn after C).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10