The sounds are secondary. Some of this is fundamental input design and we must get it right.

Quote from: Armani on Today at 01:06:04 AMThe most recent example
used a jumper to cancel a basher
I overwrote the jumper assignment with a shimmier

This is a same-tick-same-lemming assignment. This overwriting will continue to be allowed. The design in the 2024 topic was:

• Prevent assignment on same tick to different lemming. Reason: This is the problematic accidental overwriting.
  
• Some feedback for the prevented different-lemming assignment will be nice. Sound is the easiest.
  
• Allow assignment on same tick to same lemming. This will first erase the old assignment, then write the new. I assume everybody wants this.
  
• Additionally, when we erase the old assignment, we should also erase all future assignments to the same lemming. (We keep the future of other lemmings.) Lix does this and it seems the best; reason: The future of that same lemming will desync otherwise anyway. namida/WillLem haven't outright said that this is the best, but I'll chalk that up to unfamiliarity with this detail in Lix. Happy to discuss this.
  

No need for hotkeys. Prevent only what is absolutely necessary: Same-tick-different-lemming.

-- Simon

Quote from: Armani on Today at 01:06:04 AMyou have a pretty strong strong opinion on disallowing skill overwrite replay in insert mode.
I sometimes do overwrite skills with intention

Interesting that you want to overwrite. Thanks for bringing it up. Then it's not 100 % clear. See next post. I still believe that no accidental overwrite is better, but I've only read your post now, I haven't slept over it yet.

Older topics for reference:

2023 topic: Replay Insert Mode ("blue R") silently overwrites
2024 topic: Replay Insert Mode ("blue R") silently overwrites: Decision?

Quote from: WillLem on Today at 03:01:55 AMmodifier key (Ctrl, Alt, Shift) to overwrite assignments

I've already bound fencer to Shift, and I've bound nuke to Ctrl.

-- Simon

Quote from: Armani on Today at 01:03:37 AMI mean, with those reasonings you can justify implementing anything

I'm aware of what you meant. My response to what you said was partly meant in jest, but I was also pointing out that just because I could do something doesn't mean that I have any intention of doing so. I've repeatedly reassured you that I will give everyone plenty of opportunity to discuss and/or review features in an RC before deciding on them being implemented in the final version, and I intend to stick to that.

I'm now asking you for the courtesy of letting things play out, at least until 1.0 is released. I also think we could do with taking things down a notch or two. NL 12.14 is official NeoLemmix; it isn't going anywhere. CE is a pet project that might one day become the standard iff Forum users accept it as such, but we're a long way away from that.

Anyway, so far, most of the discussions have resulted in features either being put on hold or somewhat re-worked. They've even given rise to potentially better ideas (Sound Scheme - this very topic!, Replay hotkey, etc). The features list is just a starting point, it's by no means the final article.

Quote from: Armani on Today at 01:03:37 AMBut the fundamental problem I want to point out is that a lot of the features in your list are not obvious improvements nor something much requested in the first place.

At a glance, at least half of the items on this list have either been specifically requested by someone else, or there has been a general consensus that something needs to be done about it (the Replay options, for example), but perhaps no specific ideas.

Obviously, some of the items are ideas I've had and things I've suggested myself; I wouldn't even be bothering to make CE if I didn't have a decent amount of my own ideas that I think are worthwhile. Also, my expectation is that others will later make feature requests, for which CE will provide a potential platform.

As for things not being an improvement, that's a matter of opinion. The hope is that people will share their opinions and we'll reach some sort of consensus. If a majority of people think something isn't an improvement, it obviously won't be implemented into the final version (at least not non-optionally, anyway). If I feel strongly enough that it is an improvement, then I'll call programmer's prerogative and ask for it to be tested in an RC version before it's dismissed altogether. I'm sure we can agree that's reasonable.

Quote from: Armani on Today at 01:03:37 AMit's hard to believe that your list of CE features is a collection of community requests in general.(I'd be happy to be proved wrong) The list rather looks more like a WillLem's personal wish list to me.

Well, surely that's one of the perks of being the one doing the programming, I get first dibs on the ideas!

But seriously, even if the list is a personal wish list, that doesn't automatically invalidate it. On the contrary, in order for the project to happen at all, it needs a starting point. Let's start with the list I've provided, move forward from there, other people help the ideas to take shape or contribute ideas of their own, and the project develops as it goes along. That's how NL happened in the first place!

Quote from: Armani on Today at 01:03:37 AMThings like assign fail and -/+sound for example, they are not obvious improvements, they are a matter of personal preference.

I explain the merits of the Assign Fail sound here. The -/+ sound is present in nearly every early Lemmings port and is as much an integral part of the game's aesthetic as the rings-collecting sound in Sonic, or the flagpole sound in Mario. I'd say that makes them obvious improvements, but I realise that people may disagree which is why they'll be made optional.

Quote from: Armani on Today at 01:03:37 AMThat's why I suggested we can use RC build as a demo of the possible features and later ask people if they are happy about them being implemented to official version. I expect there'll be a lot of things people actually want to see but at the same time I'm pretty sure there'll be non-negligible number of features people aren't really into.

OK. Only one way to find out though...!

Quote from: Armani on Today at 01:03:37 AMThere's necessity to reach potential users who want a certain feature but aren't vocal. With the same logic you can easily expect there're people who are in the exact opposite, right? So I would argue that interpreting silence as "go ahead" makes little sense.

If I interpret it as anything else, CE won't happen.

Besides, if the Forums have taught me one thing, it's that you can always rely on people to speak up if they're against something happening. Active support is much harder to come by.

I'll likely re-work the list of features for 1.0 tomorrow (too tired to do it now). It's probably best to reduce it by about half, and release an RC sooner. That way, people have less new features to process. Less is more at this stage.

Quote from: ArmaniIt seems that you have a pretty strong opinion on disallowing skill overwrite replay in insert mode.

I'm aware of that behavior and I sometimes do overwrite skills with intention

Maybe we could use a modifier key (Ctrl, Alt, Shift) to overwrite assignments when in Replay Insert mode. Something to try for 1.0?

The point is that it should always be deliberate. The 10% of occasions where we want to overwrite shouldn't be paid for by the 90% of times we don't.

12-13 Race Against Time
Lemmings: 45
Save: 45
3:00 minutes
2 Climbers, floaters, 5 builders, 1 basher, 5 miners, 1 digger

Good: It's a decent time management puzzle and overall and interesting layout, sans timing puzzles. Kind of has some "How do I dig up the way" vibes but more complicated.

Bad: This level really has nothing unique to offer; yet another one that could easily be remade in the original with no Revolution features. Is too easy for it's position and isn't even that much of a timing puzzle, despite its title. Certainly not compared to some other levels in this game which shall remain nameless (or the very next level for example...), this level's time management is practically a cake walk. Definitely lackluster as the penultimate level, but keep in mind that the game wasn't really intended to be played in this linear way so it's not *really* the penultimate level. It certainly wasn't for me but then this level along with the chunk of four in the corner were locked for me for the longest time because of the previous levels I could not beat (including Waste Not Want Not part 2)

It's best I'm not the one to review the final level because I've never beaten it!

I don't mind adding "assign fail sound" as long as it's optional.

QuoteAnd, if we're disallowing skill overwrite in Replay Insert (we should!*)
*We might as well discuss this one here as well, it doesn't need its own topic.

It seems that you have a pretty strong opinion on disallowing skill overwrite replay in insert mode.

I'm aware of that behavior and I sometimes do overwrite skills with intention. The most recent example is; I was playing one of Strato's levels and I used a jumper to cancel a basher to make a little staircase. Later, I realized that I want to save that jumper for the last. So I overwrote the jumper assignment with a shimmier and luckily didn't have to do rest of the solution again.

These things happen rarely so I don't mind too much disallowing it if there's a good reason.

QuoteYes, it is. But I'm not doing that, I'm using it to justify implementing this feature!

I mean, with those reasonings you can justify implementing anything, even the worst things imaginable for example. That means the reasonings are not good enough by themselves. That's what I was talking about.

QuoteRest assured, I have no desire to step on anyone's toes; the goal is to add some much-requested features and/or obvious UI improvements (which would include auditory feedback, i.e. sounds) to make NeoLemmix even more Forum-friendly. We'll use RC/Experimental builds for feature testing, then (if a feature warrants it*), we'll poll to get a consensus.

*All I will say is that I don't think it's necessary to do this for every feature; the ones that need it will present themselves as development progresses. The important thing at the moment is to get started, get something released, see what the feeling is.

If some features are much requested or obvious UI improvements, I'm more than happy to see them in NLCE. We can maybe discuss about some details if needed and move on without polls as you said.

But the fundamental problem I want to point out is that a lot of the features in your list are not obvious improvements nor something much requested in the first place. I've been around forum and LF discord server for years now just like you and a lot of us. I've played a lot of levels made by many different NL players. And it's hard to believe that your list of CE features is a collection of community requests in general.(I'd be happy to be proved wrong) The list rather looks more like a WillLem's personal wish list to me. Maybe you branched some of the most controversial things out but still.

Things like assign fail and -/+sound for example, they are not obvious improvements, they are a matter of personal preference. And I can't see evidence of it being much requested.(Again, I'd be happy to be proved wrong)

That's why I suggested we can use RC build as a demo of the possible features and later ask people if they are happy about them being implemented to official version. I expect there'll be a lot of things people actually want to see but at the same time I'm pretty sure there'll be non-negligible number of features people aren't really into.

QuoteSome users might like the sounds; we want to reach those people as well as those who are vocal in opposing them. Otherwise, some users who might like (or even rely on) the expanded sound scheme might not realise it exists, and that's worse than someone being annoyed and then realising that they can turn the sounds off (an annoyed user is far more likely to go config-menu-diving!).

That's a good point.
There's necessity to reach potential users who want a certain feature but aren't vocal. With the same logic you can easily expect there're people who are in the exact opposite, right? So I would argue that interpreting silence as "go ahead" makes little sense.

12-12: Mission Impossible

Number of Lemmings: 20

Save: 20

Time: 2 minutes

Release Rate: 4 entrances: top left RR 20, top right RR 40, bottom left RR 80, and bottom right RR 60. The entrances on the left side have Lemmings going out to the left, while the Lemmings in the right entrances go out to the right.

Skills: 1 climber, 4 builders, 4 bashers, and 3 diggers.

Good: The level is essentially Revolution's version of Havoc 14 from ONML, with the 4 mini-levels here more or less the exact same as the ONML level, except you have double the amount of time to save all 20 Lemmings instead of just 1 minute and need to save all 80. As such, you can more or less use the exact same solution as the ONML level, though I think some variations are possible? It is interesting to see Revolution's take on remaking a level from another official Lemmings game, especially on a level with multiple entrances with different RR's and hence how such a level would play out under Revolution's RR system.

Bad: Do we really need another remake of an official Lemmings level? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe some of the skill tutorial levels are more or less a rehash of the first several levels of the Fun rank from L1?) Also an easy level for this very late in the game despite the small time limit. Maxing out the RR's isn't mandatory at all. As my solution shows, you don't even need to touch the RR on any of the trapdoors whatsoever. I guess the slower speed of the destructive skills in the game is already the big hindrance and therefore the reason why you only have a 1/4 of the number of Lemmings.

---

Also @mobius I added the level number to your post of your review of "Just You Wait"!  

Quote from: Simon on January 22, 2025, 10:28:59 PMSure, newbies have turned off replay -- as a hack! Can't see how to cut it after rewinding? Turn the whole feature off! Please don't mistake this for a genuine wish to disable replay.

You'll fix that newbie confusion in a different way during play. Only after that, revisit this worry.

Replied to this here.