Exploders in Lix, with/without fling/timing?

[Simon]

Hi everyone,

Please start a thread ASAP on the forums if you are serious about the bomber changes. -- ccexplore

Here's NaOH's good summary of the perceived problems and proposed solutions, with my annotations in square brackets.

Problems in bombers [= exploders] in Lix:
 
Problem A. bomber1 (no-fling) [= Lemmings-1-style bomber] is very similar to bomber2 (fling) [= from Lemmings 2]
Problem B. Timers are a nuisance in singleplayer mode, but add fun to multiplayer mode.
 
Propositions to solve:
 
Prop 1. Remove bomber1 from both game modes.
Prop 2. Remove timers for both bombers from the singleplayer mode only.
Prop 3. Remove timers for bomber1 in both game modes, no other change. (It's assumed that bomber1 would then be used for singleplayer mode by convention, and bomber2 for multiplayer, but level designers can break convention if they please.)
Prop 12. Both Prop 1 and Prop 2: remove bomber1 from both game modes, and remove the timer from the remaining bomber (bomber2) only in singleplayer mode.

My gut instinct is: If we want to simplify the game, go with proposition 1, cull the L1 bomber altogether. There aren't many levels that explicitly require the L1 bomber over the L2 exploder.

Others have expressed concern for the timing in singleplayer, and how they enjoy untimed exploders in singleplayer. Catering to these wishes, my second choice would be proposition 12, cull the L1 bomber and remove the timing in singleplayer from the L2 exploder.

Please add your opinions, or copy them from the 2015-03-04 IRC log of #lix if you've joined the discussion there.

Singleplayer nuke is currently set to be the L2 exploder iff this skill appears in the skillset, with 0 or more skill uses. Otherwise, the L1 bomber is used for nuking. Does nuking affect the game enough to be considered here?

-- Simon

[namida]

I'd argue that if the skill already exists, and has been used in levels, don't remove it.

Is there any other difference between the two? I vaguely remember hearing that one gives a larger blast?

[Simon]

Yes about the blast radius. The blast radius of the L1 bomber is the L1 one, and the L2 exploder makes a circle.

Having both bombers has been criticized in 2007/2008 already, the first test players thought they were confusing. I've delayed a solution to this problem back then. I valued the compatibility backwards and forwards of continued support for both. Delaying the cull of a skill, should it happen, is bad, because even more levels will use it.

The number of affected levels going from solvable to nonsolvable isn't too large at the moment. We have 260 levels in the lixlfpack, 110 or so in Clam's pack, and 150 in Rubix's pack. Clam knows that only one level will break, which is OK with him. The lixlfpack can be checked in one go by geoo against his replay collection, using the automatic replay batch checker.

So, while level compatibility can become an issue, it's not my predominant consideration anymore as it was in 2007/2008.

-- Simon

[ccexplore]

Instinctually speaking [read: I didn't spend hours thinking over (or even reading) this whole thing ], I have a hard time with prop 1 or prop12.  Consider the classic singeplayer beginner's setup of using blockers to hold back the crowd, then blowing up the blocker to free the crowd.  If you remove non-flinging bomber1, now the poor player has to deal with the unwanted side effects of the blow-back from the flinging bomber.  Depending on the terrain setup that may no matter at all or may totally matter.  Even when it doesn't matter, it seems to at least invite some extra walking that neither the level author nor the player wanted in the first place.  I suppose you can be given the option to use walkers instead to free the blocker, but since walkers have other uses, doing so may introduce other problems (eg. backroutes) to the level.

That said, I'm open to getting my mind changed/enlightened on this.  For people here who have actually designed and played many (at least more than me) singleplayer levels in Lix, what do you feel about the ramifications of having to replace all nonflinging bombers with either flinging bombers, or some other set of skills to compensate?

That said, can we also consider that maybe instead of focusing on the similarities, we can try to make the two skills feel more distinct then they are now?  Maybe call one of them "dynamite" instead of "flinging bomber", and have (more) different animations and skill icons accordingly?  The fact is, if you don't look closely enough, you can see all kinds of surface similarities between some of the other skills too, like builder/platformer, or maybe even digger/basher/miner.  If those skills differ "merely" by names, graphics and the directions they go, and yet can peacefully coexist, maybe so can the flinging and non-flinging bombers differing "merely" by the presence of knock-back?  Tying in the rest of the discussion, you can make them even more different based on eg. timed/untimed and other such details.

[Proxima]

I agree with ccexplore -- removing the non-flinging exploder entirely is too sweeping a change, and will affect gameplay in far too many ways for it to be appropriate to suggest this for existing levels. That a level remains solvable is a necessary condition, but doesn't mean it has no problems. It may become much harder or more fiddly, and become inappropriate for its place in the level order. Looking at successful replays to see whether they still work is not sufficient -- it doesn't show you how the solving process is affected, or what happens to other possible solutions. There is also the possibility that flinging may introduce backroutes.

I appreciate that some players prefer instant bombers, and they create some new possibilities for interesting levels (e.g. one in namida's LP packs where falling lemmings must bomb correctly to create a path for the lemmings at ground level). So it seems to me that a "best of both worlds" solution would be your (3) -- keep both bombers but make the non-fling one untimed. Thinking about my own levels in the Lix community set, I don't think any would be harmed by this change.

Three levels, "Follow the Yellow Brick Road", "Dr Strangelix" and "Once You Pop You Can't Stop", depend on timed bombers as the main challenge of the level, so if (3) is done these levels must use timed fling-bombers instead, and if (2) or (12) is done these levels must be scrapped altogether.

[namida]

As annoying as it'd be, that level (Cunning 4 from LPII) could be done with untimed bombers. Now, if you want to see levels that actually would not work with the timed bombers... (spoiler'd as this could give away part of the solution)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Fierce 6 from LPIII would definitely be impossible
Dodgy 18 might not be possible either, not sure

Now, back on-topic, if as you say there's also a difference in the blast, then this is even more of a reason to keep both of them. At the very least, maintain support for it in the engine while hiding one from the level editor; I don't advise this option, but it's better than removing it entirely.

[Simon]

Thanks for the replies so far. I'll annotate the main reasons I could make out.

New player screws up his solution by fling-exploder: Even if the player hasn't played the tutorials, not expecting the flinging at all will happen a few times at most. The fling-bomber's approximate effect is easy to anticipate afterwards. It's a normal learning process. Right now, the player has to learn both exploders anyway. Culling bomber 1 will make it easier, not harder, to learn the game.

Solvable levels become harder/easier: This can happen both with untimed bombers and/or replacing them with fling bombers. I'd eat this one, reorder the levels if necessary, and benefit from the better game design.

Solvable levels become fiddly: I don't expect this to happen much, unless the level is already fiddly. Counterexamples are welcome.

Timed bomber levels become obsolete: Not at all. The game helps with execution more than any other Lemmings variant already. Losing the timing fits in line here, and therefore supports the whole-game experience. Here are my opinions on the named levels:

• Follow yellow brick road: Seems good enough with untimed exploders. It might move towards the easier side a little bit, but it will remain a fresh level in the pack. Could work with L2 exploders after slight terrain changes, and is immune to backroutes.
  
• Dr Strangelix: Still entirely nontrivial with L1 bombers, and a great puzzle. This would need heavy terrain changes for L2 exploders.
  
• Once you pop, you can't stop: Would love untimed bombers here. Again, I deem the main challenge to be the planning here. There is a slight chance of backroutes near the exit with L2 flinging.
  

Solved levels get backroutes: This seems the most weightful argument. I can't tell how many levels are liable to backroutes here. When you design something with the L1 bomber in mind, you can be sure right now there won't be any flinging. This guarantee will be gone if the game auto-replaces L1 with L2 exploders. Even unlikely backroutes like in "Once you pop, you can't stop" are risky, because the lixlfpack has been strongly tested.

Making L1 bomber and L2 exploder more different from each other: This is in order if we can't get rid of either one. Important design goals are simplicity and ease of learning. Scrapping the L1 bomber contributes most to this goal, and making it more different from the L2 bomber contributes somewhat.

-- Simon

[NaOH]

I have a hard time with prop 1 or prop12.  Consider the classic singeplayer beginner's setup of using blockers to hold back the crowd, then blowing up the blocker to free the crowd.  If you remove non-flinging bomber1, now the poor player has to deal with the unwanted side effects of the blow-back from the flinging bomber.

Lix has the walker skill, which is greatly preferable to bombers for releasing blockers.

That said, can we also consider that maybe instead of focusing on the similarities, we can try to make the two skills feel more distinct then they are now?  Maybe call one of them "dynamite" instead of "flinging bomber", and have (more) different animations and skill icons accordingly?

This would be the idea of proposition 3, I think. Certainly if proposition 3 is adopted, the icon for bomber2 (which would have a timer) should be replaced with something more like this. (As is, the icon looks almost identical to bomber1's.)

Nonetheless, I don't like proposition 3 because I feel that flingbombers would be used in singleplayer anyway, for clam's excellent flingsanity levels at least. So why not allow timerless (and therefore more easily controlled) flinging in singleplayer?

In multiplayer, sure, leaving things uncontrolled adds chaos and entertainment. But in singleplayer it gets tedious quickly, for me at least.

New player screws up his solution by fling-exploder: Even if the player hasn't played the tutorials, not expecting the flinging at all will happen a few times at most. The fling-bomber's approximate effect is easy to anticipate afterwards. It's a normal learning process. Right now, the player has to learn both exploders anyway. Culling bomber 1 will make it easier, not harder, to learn the game.

I don't think I realized for at least a week after I started playing that there were two kinds of bombers. Even now I get confused as to which icon is which.

[geoo]

For multiplayer, timed fling-bombers are desired. I think this is uncontested. Here the flinging is an important feature, and the timing a balancing measure.

For singleplayer, ease of execution is the paradigm, and we want untimed bombers (it only affects levels that rely on the fact that you cannot bomb within the first 5 seconds, maybe "Hotel in Hell"?). But ease of execution also dictates non-flinging bombers. Here the flinging is a gimmick and not a feature and makes it harder to predict whether a planned out solution actually works, you have to watch out with a climber bomb that you don't send up two climbers too close together (this breaks Absolute Zero), or if e.g. you have to bomb a blocker and lix are trapped in a tight space it can break solutions too (re: walker instead of bomber -- can open up backroutes, so not always an option). The exception are deliberate flinging levels where this is naturally the case. (I claim that they require more trial and error than usual levels anyway because flinging is harder to predict than other skills). Those levels have merit, but to me they don't outweigh the huge bulk of normal levels that benefit from L1 bombers. Though flinging levels tend to be more fiddly by default, leaving flinging levels harder is the main drawback of Proposition 3 compared to Proposition 2.

The advantage of Proposition 3 is that is cleaner and more consistent and doesn't required adding more extra rules to multiplayer over singleplayer. Clam's argument in IRC that you play against other players etc is contrived because there's a difference between a difference in underlying principles and arbitrary inconsistencies that don't follow out of necessity. Multiplayer is always cooperative or competitive, and choosing the latter doesn't make an inconsistency, and things like no pausing follow as a consequence/necessity. If you had no difference in underlying principles, you could scrap multiplayer altogether as it'd be the same as singleplayer.

The argument that you have to learn two new skills which might be confusing is weak if level packs are set up in such a way that fling-bombers are only used for flinging levels (which is what I'd encourage: use the L1 bomber in singleplayer by convention unless it's a flinging level). This assumes that the two symbols become easier to distinguish.

Backroutes are another issue that arises from culling the L1 bomber, and the replay checker making levels easy to test after the change is incorrect too because it checks if a replay works, not if a level is solvable, and most replays will break due to the different crater shape and flinging changing the positions of some lix, even if just by a few pixels.


In conclusion, the only significant drawback of Proposition 3 I see is that singleplayer flinging levels don't become easier to execute.
Proposition 2 has the drawback of inconsistency (unelegant) and essentially requiring the player to learn 4 different versions of the bomber while (currently) making testing multiplayer levels harder.
Proposition 12 (I'm not even considering 1 alone as it unites the major drawbacks of 12 with that you don't actually gain any ease in execution in singleplayer, which is the main point really) still requires to learn two different behaviours (at least not 4) and apart from that has all the drawbacks from Proposition 2. In addition it opens a whole can of worms with regards to testing existing levels, backroutes and goes against the paradigm of ease of execution in single player. To me Proposition 3 is strictly superior to 12 as I don't see how having two bombers with different symbols and different behaviours would be worse than having one bomber with the same(!) symbol behaving differently depending on the game mode. If anything, the latter is more confusing.

[ccexplore]

New player screws up his solution by fling-exploder

Yes, though to be clear that's not really my point.  My point is more that the tacked-on flinging behavior I feel is rarely something that the player or the level author desires in singleplayer.  It feels more like liability in many cases in a way like the timing element can be, perhaps more so since the latter rarely leads to backroutes.  I will acknowledge that I am most probably biased due to prior experience with the Lemmings game.  Then again, I expect so will many players given their likely prior experience with Lemmings.

Important design goals are simplicity and ease of learning.

The "simplicity" goal is arguably already weaken given that we know a perfect adequate game exists using only the "original 8" skills, almost half the number of types of skills in Lix. Sure, some of the new skills are clearly desired, maybe even argued essential, for multiplayer; I'm not sure that's equally the case though for all 7 of the new skills.

That's not to say simplifying is to be given up altogether; I'm just not sure as things already stand, it necessarily deserves the weight being given here.  It is especially odd when arguing in favor of the version of bomber that has arguably less simple behavior.

And of course ease of learning can be addressed in many ways besides reducing number of skills.

I don't think I realized for at least a week after I started playing that there were two kinds of bombers. Even now I get confused as to which icon is which.

And the time I first started played multiplayer without having yet familiarized myself an optimal keyboard setup, I have confused the skills icons between builders and platformers multiple times in the heat of battle.  Sure, the correct lesson there is "learn to use the keyboard".  The more general point is that some of the confusion are due to poor naming and graphics choices, which are possible to address without eliminating the skill.

The fact that we resorted to calling them and thinking of them as "two kinds of bombers" is already symptomatic; it's as if we decided to call platformers "horizontal builders", or miners "diagonal diggers" (especially imagine that you have never heard of or played Lemmings 2, for obvious reasons), because we fail to come up with a better name.  Given how the human mind works, I sincerely expect that having a more distinct name, graphics and animation (maybe even sound! maybe "oh no" for classic and "boom!" for flinging?) would already likely help cut down the confusion between the two skills.  If the player is capable of handling both builders and platformers, I have faith that with more proper distinctions, they can probably handle having both explosive skills, or else perhaps they should consider instead playing other less taxing games, or one of the other many clones flourishing in the community and elsewhere.   [Though to be fair, I suppose you can take that argument and say shoo, Lix will go this way, but hey there're all these other clones if you disagree. ]

Speaking of playing, perhaps experimental validation is in order:  before seriously heading down the route of skill elimination (versus the other non-elimination proposals), actually take the task of updating the existing sets (notably the community set and a few well known ones like Rubix's and Clam's) to use flinging bombers only (or avoid bombers altogether if the result is better) and see what different players think, preferably (but not necessarily) people who haven't played particular levels before.  Making sure to cover a broad range of easy and hard levels of course.  The empirical results would be worth 1000x any theoretical arguments for or against the skill elimination.  I'd see that as a great way to be proven myself wrong for example.  A Lix design context requiring flinging bombers may also be interesting, though I'm not as sure how much that would translate into something that informs the arguments here one way or another.

[geoo]

Speaking of playing, perhaps experimental validation is in order:  [...]

I could use sed to replace all L1 bombers with fling bombers, though I'm not happy to manually adapt all of the levels to work just for an experiment...
Instead, I've had a look at all the Hopeless levels in the community pack to see how they'd be affect if we replaced L1 bombers with fling bombers:

These are the levels providing L1 bombers without requiring 100% to save:

The hotel in Hell: Would allow for a cheap backroute. I have two different solutions, one would break.
Close to the Edge: Allows for trival backroute. Player might have to restart level if placing blockers too close (and lix spill).
Empty Space: Becomes impossible, could maybe be salvaged with a miner.
Hellfire: unaffected
Yuki Muon: unaffected
Bipolar Maniac: Makes level easier to execute while leaving solution similar.
Feel the Pressure: Makes level impossible or at least extremely fiddly.
From the other Side: unaffected
Trading and Cooperating: Breaks level but it could be salvaged with minor modifications
We're in this one together: unaffected (barely, there's a bomber going off close to another worker)
Behind Bars: unaffected
Devil's right hand: I believe most solutions are unaffected
Rhapsody in Blue: Might require restart due to lix spill unless blocker carefully placed
The Continuum Hypothesis: Proxima's solution breaks or at least becomes extremely fiddly. My solution is unaffected.
Won't get fooled again: I think my solution would be affected but might be salvageable, don't know about ccx'
Absolute Zero: becomes impossible
Labyrinth of Despair: unaffected
Brickout: My solution is unaffected, don't know about ccx'
Striking News: Makes level extremely fiddly or maybe even impossible.


Levels with fling bombers:

Panic Attack currently provides both types of bombers, one of each; the L1 one is used to avoid knockback (which would kick one lix into the abyss), and the L2 one is used due to the bigger radius. Level could probably be adapted to use just one type of bombers of either kind.
Merde provides fling bombers, but they are not used in the solution, could easily be interchanged for L1 bombers or removed.
No More Heroes has a fling bomber, replacing it with a normal bomber would ease timing I think.


Hellfire, Behind Bars and one solution to Labyrinth of Despair require the player to be aware not to send the second climber too close to the climber bomb if we gave L2 bombers.

[Nepster]

...and there are some more levels in Hopeless, that would admit new flinging solutions (apart from the two already mentioned by geoo):
- From the other side
- We're in this one together (though one could probably accept this one)
- Devil's right hand (but more due to the bigger blast radius)
- Won't get fooled again
Yuki Muon might be a good candidate as well.

I agree with ccexplore (and others) that flinging in single-player is usually an unwanted side-effect (of course apart from specially created flingsane levels). So I would go either with Prop 3 or simply with renaming fling-bombers and changing the icon.

New player screws up his solution by fling-exploder: Even if the player hasn't played the tutorials, not expecting the flinging at all will happen a few times at most. The fling-bomber's approximate effect is easy to anticipate afterwards. It's a normal learning process. Right now, the player has to learn both exploders anyway. Culling bomber 1 will make it easier, not harder, to learn the game.

Yes, but this would be an argument to cull the fling-bomber, not the L1 bomber . Even after playing through almost all levels of the community level pack and a good part of ClamLix and Rubix's level pack, I still cannot anticipate the flinging distance. Sometimes I plan to fling Lix X to position Y and the maximum I actually manage is about half the way. In other situations a Lix is flung far beyond the actual target...
If you compare that to the L1 bomber: Seeing it twice and you know what you are about. So there is only thing to learn: How to distinguish it from the fling-bomber .

[Clam]

I don't typically advocate adding more options to the game, but: how about implementing Prop 2 as an option, "Untimed bombers in singleplayer"? You can't complain about inconsistency if you have to opt in to it

[namida]

The issues I see with that are:

1. Levels that require using a bomber earlier than timed allows for. This could be avoided by making it a per-level option rather than per-user (at the creator's decision).
2. That could be difficult - though far from impossible - to handle in replays.

[Ben H]

Why can't both co-exist?
If it's because they are similar, well Tribes has a lot of similar skills.
Actually some of them are FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL, just with different names/themes.

With the different exploders though, personally I think they are different enough to warrant their own place.
So I'm of the opinion that they should be left as intended.

Also I think that if the original author designed them as one type of exploder, then you shouldn't change/alter their work in order to squeeze it into your platform/framework. If this can't logistically be done, then you should leave the level out altogether.

I suppose you could argue that moving 1px or 2px (like has been done in some levels), is altering the level. But this does not really affect the game play or the original author's intent. However swapping one type of bomber for another completely changes things... as well as re-designing someone's level to accommodate the changes... when they aren't around to ask if they mind... IDK... to me it feels disrespectful.

Just my 2c.

EDIT: re-reading the comments it seems that most of the original author's ARE around to ask if they are okay with it.
I still think that the different exploders are different enough to warrant their own inclusion.

EDIT2: Another option is making it work for existing levels, but deprecating it for newly created levels... if it is disliked so much.

[ccexplore]

If it's because they are similar, well Tribes has a lot of similar skills.

It's definitely an anti-goal for Lix to wind up like Lemmings 2 with its borderline-silly cornucopia of 50+ skills.  My understanding is that with the evolution of Lix, it just started off with the original 8 and only slowly and deliberately do other skills get added, often out of multiplayer experiences (which often have vastly different considerations than singleplayer).  So it's hardly surprising that Simon has brought up eliminating one of the two.  In fact, I wouldn't mind an official story of how the flinging-style bomber came to be included in the first place.

I'll give credit to the Lemmings 2 skillset for novelty factor, and for the most part I feel almost-neutral about it.  But it's rather telling that no newer game in the series has ever featured anywhere close to that many new skills ever again.  Indeed, I think even if you count other types of new elements in the newer games (eg. disappearing floors, switches, antigravity, creatures and what-not), the total may likely still come out to lower than 51.

To be fair, I'm not sure how much the vast skillset in Lemmings 2 actually translates into a learning problem for most people.  That is, even for the people who don't like the vastness of the skillset, I'm not so sure that many are actually getting confused or stumped by it, as opposed to simply seeing the vastness of the skillset as inferior and not particularly compelling.

[Ramon]

If anything I'd change the fling-bomber's icon to something more distinctive than the normal exploder - I couldn't tell at the beginning whether I had normal or fling bombers. You could for instance add a few 'flung' Lix into the icon somewhere.

I don't care much about the bomber timing except for one exception, so Prop 3 would be fine by me. I honestly don't think having two similar exploding skills is a real problem, as long as they're distinctive.

[geoo]

I generally like options allowing for personal preference, but in the timed/untimed case there's the issue namida mentioned. Having a level specific is even worse consistency-wise, as it essentially means having 4 skills all of which can be used in single player, rather than Proposition 2 where we have 4 different behaviors, but only 2 pertain to singleplayer and arguably only 1 to multiplayer (who wants non-fling bombers in multiplayer?).

I think avoiding skill redundancy is more about elegance, simplicity and having a few concepts used to their fullest instead of a lot of concepts that are just touched here and there (see Simon's writeup on rules, especially the very last quote). I don't remember being annoyed at having to learn all the L2 skills and in fact to me L2 has the most replay value, but it's true that many things lean more toward gimmicks than features.

I think the reason we have fling bombers in lix is that it's more fun and useful for blocker removal in multilplayer which is Simon's focus, though Simon should have the definitive word on that.

I think at this point the decision is basically down to Proposition 2 or 3 plus more distinctive icons, with 3 being more elegant but 2 making singleplayer fling levels easier.

@Ben H: Are you by any chance the Ben Hunter who created Cheapo levels back in the day?

[Ben H]

If it's because they are similar, well Tribes has a lot of similar skills.

It's definitely an anti-goal for Lix to wind up like Lemmings 2 with its borderline-silly cornucopia of 50+ skills.

I agree that the number of skills was border-line ridiculous.
Especially when many of them were redundant.

To be fair, I'm not sure how much the vast skillset in Lemmings 2 actually translates into a learning problem for most people.  That is, even for the people who don't like the vastness of the skillset, I'm not so sure that many are actually getting confused or stumped by it, as opposed to simply seeing the vastness of the skillset as inferior and not particularly compelling.

I don't think it is was confusing either.
But I also don't think that it was warranted, and feel that it took away from the gameplay a bit.
For me the novelty factor wore off pretty quickly, and it tended to become more a distraction.

I generally like options allowing for personal preference, but in the timed/untimed case there's the issue namida mentioned. Having a level specific is even worse consistency-wise, as it essentially means having 4 skills all of which can be used in single player, rather than Proposition 2 where we have 4 different behaviors, but only 2 pertain to singleplayer and arguably only 1 to multiplayer (who wants non-fling bombers in multiplayer?).

I think avoiding skill redundancy is more about elegance, simplicity and having a few concepts used to their fullest instead of a lot of concepts that are just touched here and there

That's also very true.

Ben H: Are you by any chance the Ben Hunter who created Cheapo levels back in the day?

Nope. Different Ben.

[Simon]

Yes, I'm leaning most towards proposition 2 now: Remove timers from both exploders in singleplayer, keep everything as-is in multiplayer. The skills need to become more different in the panel.

Proposition 3 is an alternative, removing the L1 bomber timer, and deprecating its usage in multiplayer.

By now, there are too many levels dependent on the non-flinging physics of the L1 bomber. From multiplayer design, the L1 bomber is a barnacle that has attached to the ship and can't be scrubbed off easily by now. From a singleplayer level designer's viewpoint, however, the L1 bomber is more valuable than the L2 exploder. Thanks to the various level authors for sharing their ideas here.

Nepster is right in how arguing against the L1 bomber provides arguments against the L2 exploder instead. The L2 bomber will stay in at all costs for now. This is an important attacking skill in multiplayer.

Design history: The L1 bomber came in 2006, when I was aiming at a Lemmings 1 clone, as a learning project for C++. Everything should be close to L1, but with bugfixed physics if possible. I did not care much about contemporary game design back then.

The multiplayer mode came in 2008, and the L2 exploder had to come because blockers on steel turned out unremovable by the opponents. Level exits had to have lots of steel around them, and the L1-included levels had lots of steel in general. The batter was a much later addition in 2011.

-- Simon

[RubiX]

Honestly I like keeping it how it is, or we start moving too far away from Lemmings.

[namida]

While I don't know how strongly my opinion should be weighted as I don't really play Lix too much, and when I do it's solely multiplayer (at least so far), but I quite like the idea of making both untimed in single-player, leaving them timed in multi-player; and definitely, make the icons more different.

[RubiX]

I dont see the need to break something that isnt broken.
Doing this can change a lot of singleplayer maps to be broken.  I just feel theres better stuff to work on than a change like this, which shouldnt even need to be changed :S

[namida]

I'm sure at the very least, you can agree the icons need to be differentiated more?

[Nepster]

Doing this can change a lot of singleplayer maps to be broken.

The only change in game mechanics discussed right now, seems to be the removal of timers to bombers. As far as I know, there are only very few levels, that might be affected by instant bombers (e.g. Won't get fooled again, though I can't confirm that right now).

And while there is no need to break things that aren't broken, one can do so, if it results in easier gameplay .

[Ben H]

Not just easier gameplay, but better gameplay too.

Personally I think it's not much fun having to restart the same level multiple times, just to figure out where every timed bomber in a level should be activated.

[Proxima]

I enjoy the challenge of bomber-timing levels and the satisfaction of overcoming the challenge. And it's not drastically different from something that's an inevitable part of the game -- precision placement of other skills, especially builders and miners.

However, the current paradigm of having only timed bombers means that any level including a climbing bomber, falling bomber or which cannot contain blockers due to backroutes gains an element of execution difficulty that the designer may not want. For instance, my level Changing of the Guards -- it's meant to be a "quickie" where figuring out the solution is the real challenge, and the execution difficulty is an unwanted side-effect.

So I'm still in favour of (3) over (2) -- designers are able to choose the bombers that suit their level concept better, but we gain untimed bombers, and we don't have (2)'s inconsistency of different behaviour in multiplayer.

Also, (2) would mean that non-fling bombers would be almost a completely wasted skill in multiplayer, whereas (3) makes them a new useful skill. Somewhat overpowered, but then designers have the option of providing as few or as many as they like.

[RubiX]

Yea breaking as in easier gameplay.   I dont see why we should take away the challenge that timing can bring
I'll agree with different icons between the bombs for sure though.

[Simon]

challenge that timing can bring

For singleplayer, many consider that a chore, not a welcome challenge.

Singleplayer needs tools and aids to easen execution. This design guideline has been very well received in the past years. Untimed exploders fit right in.

Multiplayer is not touched at all -- except maybe for proposition (3), i.e., consistently untimed L1 bombers, which are not used anyway in multiplayer.

The choice between (2) and (3) is whether consistency or ease-of-use is more important.

-- Simon

[NaOH]

The choice between (2) and (3) is whether consistency or ease-of-use is more important.

I think that spells it out succinctly.

Personally, I don't much value consistency. Sure, it's important on some level, but it's not the be-all and end-all. Lix is already so streamlined, for multiplayer and singleplayer. Tailoring the gameplay just a little to each is all that's needed to make it perfect.

Differing behaviour between singleplayer and multiplayer w.r.t bomber timers is not so hard to figure out. It's certainly easier than figuring out the difference between bomber1 and bomber2, which have the same icon.

[Clam]

This has boiled down rather nicely.

I think the ease of execution with untimed bombers is worth the inconsistency between modes. To make the difference really explicit, you could have the length of the timer as part of the symbol (5' in MP, 0' in SP).

Removing the timer from fling-bombers hasn't been done yet AFAIK, but I can only imagine it being even more helpful than for regular bombers

[Proxima]

To make the difference really explicit, you could have the length of the timer as part of the symbol (5' in MP, 0' in SP).

What on earth would be the point of a bomber with a five-minute timer? 

[namida]

Heh, I'm sure I could think of some wacky gimmicky use for it...

[Simon]

I would like to make both exploders untimed in singleplayer, keep all exploders timed in multiplayer.

It's much more efficient and pleasant to have no timing in singleplayer. There is some consistency here, too.

This needs a decision within the upcoming days. I.e., if you're really concerned about this decision, now would be a good time.

Skippable background {
I tried to keep the releases within the past month backwards compatible. Anyone with 2015-01 or newer should have been able to netplay together.

I screwed up, and nukes aren't transmitted properly between 2015-01 and 2015-06. Skills are transmitted fine. When people all have 2015-06-xx, they can play together again.

The obvious fix is to make people update to 2015-06. Even if I found the bug, one group of people had to update anyway -- either the old version users, or the new version users.

To make the update enticing, I would like to put due physics changes into this update. A big change is timed/untimed exploders.
}

-- Simon

[namida]

While not 100% consistent, that option at least makes sense. Bombers, particularly the fling bombers, are very OP in multiplayer due to the instantaneous destruction of a relatively large area compared to other destructive skills. Putting a timer on them nerfs that a bit. On the other hand, in singleplayer, you're not reacting to anything that isn't consistent every time you play (assuming you play it the same way or use a replay), so making them timed doesn't nerf them, it just annoys the player.

One thing I may suggest is modifying the icon slightly in multiplayer, put a stopwatch or something like that which would hint at the timed nature.

[Simon]

Yes, icon design is the next thing, and it's important. I didn't want to go here before making the above decision.

-- Simon

[Ramon]

I'm in favor of untimed exploders and bombers in Single Player. And yes, a better distinction between exploder and flingbomber icons would be grand too, maybe we could start gathering ideas.

[Proxima]

Does this mean it will continue to be possible to have both exploders and bombers in the same level?

If this change is made, I would like to modify Halfway Down the Stairs to give a runner instead of a jumper, all else remaining the same. The runner isn't particularly useful, but it means the level continues to have 12 different skills.

Simon has argued that my timed-bomber levels are still playable after this change, so I'm happy for them to be left as-is.

[ccexplore]

Does this mean it will continue to be possible to have both exploders and bombers in the same level?

The idea to not allow both in the same level was brought up on another thread that discusses displayed order of skills in the toolbar (idea to expand from 12 slots to 14 but most slots always dedicated to one particular skill type).  On that thread it sounded like we are leaning more towards not allowing both in same level, though technically I think it can still be supported/tolerated under that vision even if very strongly discouraged.

Not sure whether Simon's immediate-next update will have that as well or merely just making all exploders untimed.

[Simon]

Only one type of exploder per level: This is already in the current release. I didn't expect there to be levels that use both.

Proxima: Will change Halfway down the stairs as you have described. I recommend you to post an updated version to the pack thread, in addition. This way, the change won't be reverted later, when geoo does maintainance work on the pack.

Your bomber-timing levels: Yeah, they don't seem trivial to me at all without timing. :-)

-- Simon

[geoo]

While it was still an open question in the topic regarding the 14 skill panel, Simon doesn't want to keep supporting having both bombers at the same time (or esoteric skill like burner, shrugger, stunner for that matter), not even as a hidden text editor only option (which esoteric skills were until now). Only a few levels are affected, but complain now if you feel strongly about this change.

Simon: Halfway down the stairs has both bombers, so there'll have to be more changes than the one Proxima just indicated. There's a variety of solutions that works with just 1 bomber though.

Not sure how/if NaOH's burner level can be adapted (it seems like replacing the burners with bombers might work EDIT: confirmed). Panic Attack can be adapted to use only 1 kind of bomber, I'm pretty sure.

Apart from these, as far as I'm aware only a bunch of silly late-night levels will be gone.

[ccexplore]

Wow, that was quite a long chat between you and Simon on IRC (I had to stop reading halfway for lack of time), didn't realize you are that passionate for keeping the status quo.

I think deep down I feel exactly the same as you did on IRC, but at the same time realize that of all recent change proposals from Simon (aka "cullings"), this is probably already lowest on impact to existing levels and the overall gameplay.  The expounded benefits are reasonable even if not directly applicable to me, and to some extent backed by the official franchise (ie. IIRC every game except Lemmings 2 stick with one dedicated slot for each skill).

[Simon]

Random properties of the upcoming implementation:

Replays won't record (change active skill in the skillbar) anymore. Instead, each assignment is augmented with information about the assigned skill. This makes the skillbar solely part of the GUI, like fast-forward. Playing back a replay will not change skills in the panel. Changing skills in the panel will not interrupt a playback.

I have written and tested backwards compatibility for older replays. Exploder assignments in older singleplayer replays will be moved forward in time. When playing back such an old singleplayer replay, the untimed exploder makes a crater at the same position as when played back in the currently released Lix versions.

An exploder assignment in a replay doesn't carry information about whether the exploder is timed or not. This is inferred by the number of players.

Exploder mass-assignments from the nuke are untimed in singleplayer, timed in multiplayer.

I am making a longer animation for the non-fling exploder. I'll show sprites when it's done. The exploder will stand still while going through the anim, as before. Thus, the crater is at the same position as when played back in the current Lix version. The explosion will happen a few frames later.

Exploders in mid-air will not go through the anim, but explode instantly. This is also unlike the current version.

From the new anim, it's less obvious that exploders can be assigned in mid-air. We have to think about this.

-- Simon

[namida]

An exploder assignment in a replay doesn't carry information about whether the exploder is timed or not. This is inferred by the number of players.

This sounds like a recipe for disaster. Perhaps a better suggestion is to always record their position as if they were untimed (or as if they were timed; the important thing is being consistent, not which option you pick) and have the game adjust as nessecary, since it seems you've already figured how to properly adjust for timing or lack thereof.

I am making a longer animation for the non-fling exploder. I'll show sprites when it's done. The exploder will stand still while going through the anim, as before. Thus, the crater is at the same position as when played back in the current Lix version. The explosion will happen a few frames later.

This is also potentially going to cause issues, particularly if other lixes pass through at the same time.

[Simon]

An exploder assignment in a replay doesn't carry information about whether the exploder is timed or not. This is inferred by the number of players.

This sounds like a recipe for disaster. [...] always record their position as if they were untimed

I'm willing to solve this in a different way.

Reasoning for own suggestion: Replays have always stored the recording game's version. The game knows the rules of older versions. Upon loading a replay, if the replay is old, it's silently forward-converted. The file remains untouched. At this time, the game knows exactly whether or not to shift the assignment.

Should the rules change again, the replay forward convertor will grow some more moss, because it will be deciding between several different rules. The moss will grow all in one single function that's called once at replay loading.

About storing exploding time: I'm using replay data both for replays and for networking games. I'd like to keep this for simplicity. The assignment carries information about directional force. Assignments with the false directional force aren't carried out when replaying. Storing directional force is good for networked team games. If we store the time of explosion instead of assignment, several assumptions of the running game break, and need special cases.

Another idea is to store time of the assignment, but explicitly store timed/untimed with each assignment.

I am making a longer animation for the non-fling exploder. I'll show sprites when it's done. The exploder will stand still while going through the anim, as before. Thus, the crater is at the same position as when played back in the current Lix version. The explosion will happen a few frames later.

This is also potentially going to cause issues, particularly if other lixes pass through at the same time.

Yes, it's a physics change and may break some replays. This is accepted. Level pack managers can batch-verify their replay collection. There will be a WIP release before inflicting the change on everyone, to see whether the new anim is worth the break.

-- Simon

[Simon]

Current plan: All singleplayer exploders are untimed, all multiplayer exploders are timed.

Non-fling exploders will not go through an animation after countdown, before explosion. So no large head, and no detonator either. The detonator anim suggested the lix weren't assignable in mid-air. This graphic doesn't match the physics.

To differentiate the exploders, we'll make the non-fling exploder an imploder. This has a darker effect like a black hole, not the bright explosion. This isn't drawn yet. We have only agreed on the physics so far, and can deliver the imploder animation later, without breaking physics again.

I've tested geoo's replays for the lemforum pack. There are some failing replays even when testing with the last stable release. geoo, I hope this matches your expectation:

Code: [Select]

==> replaycheck-2015-06-02.txt <== (stable version, large head, takes 4 frames to explode)
  53x (FAIL): replay names an existing level file, but doesn't solve it.
  803x (OK): replay names an existing level file and solves that level.

==> replaycheck-2015-07-08.txt <== (detonator, takes 8 frames to explode)
  67x (FAIL): replay names an existing level file, but doesn't solve it.
  789x (OK): replay names an existing level file and solves that level.

==> replaycheck-2015-07-12.txt <== (no animation, instant explosion)
  87x (FAIL): replay names an existing level file, but doesn't solve it.
  769x (OK): replay names an existing level file and solves that level.
The replays are automatically corrected for untimed exploders. The old timed assignments in singleplayer are delayed, such that the explosion/animation happens at the same time as before, with the new untimed physics.

The replay will nonetheless desync, because the crater appears at a different time, due to length of animation before crater.

Roadmap: Decide on what to do with basher staircases, and release this. People want the untimed exploders in singleplayer!

-- Simon

[ccexplore]

Non-fling exploders will not go through an animation after countdown, before explosion.

Is that truly just for non-fling exploders imploders, or both types?  Based on your comments it sounds like it should apply to both types?

[Simon]

It's for both. It's new only for non-fling exploders. It has always been like that for flingploders, which work as before.

-- Simon