I've attached a spreadsheet with the titles, authors and styles of all 240 levels in the latest NeoLemmix version. Next, I'm going to go through the level list (which WillLem has provided) for the RL version and compare the two, so that we know how many levels we have in total; that will help when it comes to time to start the selection process.

Since we want to keep the NL and RL versions synchronised, I've highlighted levels that use styles that don't exist (currently) in RL. Fortunately, there are only seven of these: three in L2 Circus, one in L2 Medieval, one in Persia and two (a repeat pair) in Minesweeper. (At some point there was discussion about having one "special graphics" level per rank and treating the Persia and Minesweeper levels as this, but that never got off the ground. Of course, we can still keep these levels even if we don't have others.)

I know we haven't absolutely decided on 3 packs x 4 ranks yet, but I wanted to put down some thoughts on rank names before they leave my head. Firstly, an important resource: Akseli's list of rank names in other packs. We don't absolutely have to avoid duplication, but it's one factor to consider; we should definitely avoid duplicating a name already used twice, like "Breezy" or "Perplexing".

The existing RotL ranks have some individually good names, but they don't cohere all that well as a series: there's a mixture of nouns and adjectives, and no consistent theme; "Picnic" and "Hootenanny" start a "social gatherings" theme, which is then dropped. "Pain" coming after "Frenzy" feels the wrong way round.

I guess that the intention is for pack 2 to be overall harder than pack 1 but not to the extent of pack 1 containing the easiest 120 levels and pack 2 the hardest 120; so the difficulty order of the ranks might be 1A, 2A, 1B, 2B, 1C, 2C, 1D, 2D; the rank names should at least roughly reflect this (which means 2D should be "Armageddon").

Of WillLem's suggestions (above), "Kind" and "Clever" are non-duplicates.

My suggestions:

Pack 1: Picnic, Hootenanny, Riot, Carnage
Pack 2: ?, Pain, Frenzy, Armageddon
Pack 3: Kind, Devious, Menacing, Absurd

"?" obviously isn't a suggestion, it's a blank to fill in later    "Absurd" is inspired by WillLem's "Ridiculous", but changed to a synonym to avoid a duplicate.

Quote from: WillLem on March 31, 2026, 02:08:08 AMThanks for reporting this. I've prepared a test version with the suggested fix (see attached), although it uses "ToUpperInvariant()" and "ToLowerInvariant()" instead, as this is shorthand for the same thing.

Can you confirm that this indeed fixes the issue?

---

NOTE TO ALL: Please do not use the attached Editor for anything important as stability cannot be guaranteed. Thanks.

Dear WillLem,

Thank you so much for your rapid response and quick fix. I tried the exe and the fix indeed works as intended.   
To test it, I first opened a level with swimmers and used Save As. The saved copy did in fact carry the skillset forward and the spelling is now correct.
Then I edited the file, set the hatch object piece to spawn swimmers re-saved and that file is also saved correctly and both levels open correctly in the player.
You can count the infamous "Turkish I problem" as 'solved' for your release candidate.

I also set the level to spawn ten lemmings and added a lemmings object, setting it's skill to swimmer. As mentioned earlier even with the hatch being set to spawn swimmers and manually added a lemming, the Globals tab still shows "11 Normal" under the Lemmings spawn/release rate and save options. I am not sure if I am doing something wrong or if it's a bug I wanted to let you know about this as well.

Once again, I thank you so much on behalf of all the players who suffered from the "İ" problem, for fixing it.

Version 2.9.6 hotfix update

Stabilized replay auto-saving, and made some UI improvements.

Here's what's new:

Replay Autosaving

• Auto-saving has been refactored for stability. Previously, a bug occurred in which replays were sometimes not auto-saved if a replay had been manually opened during the session. This (amongst other things) has now been fixed, and auto-saving replays is now much more solid and maintainable.
• Improved default name string - pack titles are now also concatenated (as well as level titles and ratings) for replays, but not for the auto-save pack subfolder.

Unlocking Levels via Code

• Previous behaviour for unlocking a level via a code (the level remains unlocked in 'Choose Level' dialog for the current session, and reverts to being locked for subsequent sessions) has now been restored following the Player Records refactor.

Skill Panel

• RR buttons are now much more responsive, and repeats kick in sooner when holding the buttons.
• Dragging the cursor between -/+ RR now produces continuous RR updates (modelled on the Amiga skill panel!).

Styles

• Red and green gems in 'sugar' are now a touch darker and more like rubies/emeralds.

Editor

• RL Editor version 1.5 is included with the download. See the Editor's "About" dialog for update info.

A reminder of what's new as of 2.9.

---

Get the latest version here.

Version 1.5 hotfix

A small update this time.

Bugfix/UI

• When typing a level title, if the limit of 32 is exceeded, the title is shown in red as a warning (but still allowed).

---

Download the latest version of the RetroLemmini Editor.

Thanks for reporting this. I've prepared a test version with the suggested fix (see attached), although it uses "ToUpperInvariant()" and "ToLowerInvariant()" instead, as this is shorthand for the same thing.

Can you confirm that this indeed fixes the issue?

---

EDIT: Attachment removed.

Quote from: Proxima on March 30, 2026, 11:04:52 PM* Avoiding miles-out-of-place howlers like "Crossing Paths" being in the first rank
* Keeping the focus either on NeoLemmix, or on NL and RL equally
* Working together on level selection so we can come up with a final version we're all satisfied with, and we won't have to have the same discussion and yet another version five years down the line 

Agreed on all points. I think it probably makes sense to keep the focus on NL (since that's the most popular engine), and then cross-port the resulting pack to RL.

As for porting to RL, the process will be generally this:

1) Is the level playable in RL without changing anything? If yes, add it. If no, move to (2)
2) Is the level playable in RL by making a small change to the level layout or release rate? If yes, make the change and add it. If no, move to (3)
3) Is the level playable in RL by making a small change to the skillset, lem count, or time limit? If yes, make the change and add it. If no, move to (4)
4) Is the level playable in RL by making a large change to anything? If yes, make the change and add it. If no, move to (5)
5) Find a suitable replacement level in the reserve pool and add it

It should be understood that replacement levels would be added at the same listing slot as the level being replaced, in order to preserve the ordering.

Quote from: WillLem on March 30, 2026, 10:33:45 PMThe thing I feel strongest about is the amount of levels, the pack titles, the music (there's currently way too much), and the overall presentation.

Good to know, and fortunately I agree with the proposed pack titles, number of levels, and about the music.

As for me, the things I feel most strongly about are:
* Avoiding miles-out-of-place howlers like "Crossing Paths" being in the first rank
* Keeping the focus either on NeoLemmix, or on NL and RL equally
* Working together on level selection so we can come up with a final version we're all satisfied with, and we won't have to have the same discussion and yet another version five years down the line 

Quote from: Proxima on March 30, 2026, 05:26:24 PMtaking over the RotL project and moving it back to RL
...
The only way that I can see this working is if those who are interested ... work together to agree on the level selection (and then ordering, backroute fixes etc), with the aim of producing final RL and NL versions with the same levels

Agreed, absolutely. Both versions should be as identical as possible. We all need to co-ordinate.

If it helps, I'm actually not too fussed about level selection/ordering, or backroute fixing. I'm happy for others to take that on.

The thing I feel strongest about is the amount of levels, the pack titles, the music (there's currently way too much), and the overall presentation.

Here's what I'd suggest:

Revenge of the Lemmings (120 levels)
Picnic / Hootenanny / Carnage / Armageddon

Return of the Lemmings (120 levels)
Kind / Cunning / Devious / Menacing

Lemmings Assemble (120 levels)
Breezy / Clever / Perplexing / Ridiculous

Just to quickly add; in case I didn't mention this before; every time I produced an update; my biggest concern was taking in everyone's feedback. "a level=incompatible with NL (or visa versa) wasn't the only reason levels got removed or altered. Obviously every single piece of feedback isn't available in the threads, but some of it should be. At one point Akseli and Pieuw made entire google docs with feedback on every single level. And there's opinions by those who LP'd the games like kaywhyn. Again, its not my call anymore, but imho these opinions should be taken into account. Atm, i don't know where to find those docs, I'll try looking if anyone wants.
I bring this up because the Lemmini version is older and therefore contains levels removed from later versions, like 'Oh no, not again', for example because only 1 person I remember liked it; everyone else that voiced an opinion pretty much hated that level.

Another important thing is backroute fixes and polishes and that sort of thing. I haven't looked at these recent updates of the Lemmini version (and frankly don't intend to) but I wonder if older problems and mistakes in those were brought back here.

Anyways; no intents to be a downer or anything; I fully support whatever you guys do with this. If we start a new pack (sequel or whatever) I'd recommend making a new topic for that, inviting people to post levels and go through a playtesting period, like we did with the lix community set. That was tons of fun honestly, I hope we can do that again, even if my involvement is minimal.