Level design conventions

[namida]

So I thought it would be nice to get together a set of level design conventions for NeoLemmix in a single place, since we have a lot of them - some official (eg. "don't leave heaps of empty space", "use infinite time rather than 9-minute time limits on small levels", etc), others not official but widely used (eg. "place a fake pickup skill near an entrance to signify what permanent skills the lemmings spawn with").

My preliminary list is here, does anyone have any input on it?

http://www.neolemmix.com/old/conventions.html

Some things I'm wondering about:

> Point 3, the eventual plan is to have some built-in way to indicate pre-assigned skills rather than relying on the level designer to do so. However, until such a change is made, the existing (albeit currently unofficial) convention is very useful. As such, should that example be removed?
> Point 7, would it be better to just have a single "rule" here rather than one depending on whether new skills are used or not?

Any other input is welcome, of course. Do keep in mind though that this is meant to be "How to design a level that conforms to general NeoLemmix level conventions", not "How to design a good level". That's why, for example, I've made the suggestion to use infinite time if a time limit isn't needed, but not stated anything about how much margin of error a time limit should give in levels that do use them; or why I haven't stated anything about whether big or small levels are better, etc.

[Simon]

Very comprehensive.

I love how use-fewer-lemmings is already a guideline. I've thought it meaningful, and it improves NL performance on my old machine, but never wrote a post on it.

About 2. (Avoid deceptive elements)

Do note the "mislead the player in a negative way".

What is a negative way? Rule of thumb: Players with perfect judgement could solve the level by merely looking at it. They don't have to explore the level for hidden gadgets. This rule-of-thumb oversimplifies slightly, because entrance order isn't visible. Yet level designers shouldn't have to visualize entrance order.

About 3. (Indicate unobvious elements, such as entrances spawning lemmings with pre-assigned skills)

the eventual plan is to [...] should that example be removed?

Point out that the change is on the radar. Leave in the guideline nonetheless. I estimate that you won't implement hatch icons in the upcoming month.

VGASPEC files for these, but if you don't already have them, you can download them here.



About 4. (Rely on autosteel wherever possible.)

I have no idea about the difference between simple autosteel and regular autosteel. Which should we use? Why is it best?

About 7. (Unless only using the traditional 8 [...], remove unused skills.)

I'm leaning towards two rules. Traditional 8 with whited-out skills are much easier to locate.

-- Simon

[IchoTolot]

I've got another point:

Don't rely on bridge-stretching when possible.
Topic: http://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=2193.0

And maybe even some ideas about the "huge-level" topic could be included:
http://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=2299.0

[namida]

About 4. (Rely on autosteel wherever possible.)

I have no idea about the difference between simple autosteel and regular autosteel. Which should we use? Why is it best?

The difference is, if a regular terrain piece is positioned over the top of the steel piece, regular autosteel will mean the affected pixels are now non-steel. Simple autosteel does not take such situations into account. The latter is useful for maps like Taxing 7 or Mayhem 1 where the terrain overlapping the steel is purely decorative, and the affected pixels clearly are still meant to be steel. (Do note that the former is an example of a level that autosteel alone cannot really cover, and manual steel is needed; the latter on the other hand will work perfectly just by using Simple Autosteel.)

This rule-of-thumb oversimplifies slightly, because entrance order isn't visible. Yet level designers shouldn't have to visualize entrance order.

Indeed. Perhaps a better rule of thumb is if we replace "by merely looking at it" with something more like "by merely watching what happens in the first 15 seconds or so when no action is taken". This however does set up a loophole when going by the letter (rather than the spirit) of the rule - as technically, placing a hidden trap wouldn't violate it, as long as an unattended lemming gets struck within the first 15 seconds. I would argue that weeding out loopholes is not important when making guidelines rather than absolute rules.

I do think a better way of wording that point is needed.

Don't rely on bridge-stretching when possible.
Topic: http://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=2193.0

And maybe even some ideas about the "huge-level" topic could be included:
http://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=2299.0

While those topics raise some excellent points, I think they're a tad outside the scope of what I'm looking at here. This is meant to be about design conventions, that create a consistent NeoLemmix feel and allow the player to have (mostly) constant expectations; not nessecerially about how to make good levels.

[Simon]

regular terrain piece is positioned over the top of the steel piece, regular autosteel will mean the affected pixels are now non-steel.

Understanding the difference, I'd formulate the guideline as "use regular autosteel", a stronger guideline than "rely on autosteel". What looks like steel is steel, and what looks like dirt is dirt. That's good and conforms to the guideline to be explicit.

-- Simon

[namida]

I don't feel it's appropriate to give an explicit guideline of "use regular autosteel, not simple autosteel", precisely because of the kind of levels mentioned before. Regular autosteel ultimately ends up being deceptive on levels which are decorated in that fashion, and I see no reason to advise against such decoration, provided that it's done in a non-deceptive manner (eg: is anyone seriously going to think the mossy parts in Steel Works are, in fact, not steel?).

The ultimate logic behind this point is that autosteel usually ends up being more accurate and easier to do than manual steel ever does. Many situations in where it is incorrect, Simple Autosteel solves the problem. Ultimately however, there is no difference to the person playing the level between a level that uses autosteel, or even one that uses manual steel areas that just happen to be laid out exactly the same way that autosteel would; so it really does come back to "don't be deceptive" more than anything else. One reason for stressing it is that in DOS / Lemmix levels, and possibly even Lemmini levels, steel areas often tend to extend a bit beyond the edge of the actual steel terrain; this is nessecary in those engines, but gives very undesirable results in NeoLemmix due to the better handling of steel. Made-for-NeoLemmix levels would, I imagine, rarely use manual steel areas in the first place - autosteel was a feature long before any dedicated NeoLemmix content (even my own) existed.

This kind of thing strikes me as being extremely pedantic. If one observes the link in context, it is completely obvious what "here" refers to, especially given that it is only a single link. If one is not paying attention to the overall content, this page is not the one they are looking for in the first place.

[Simon]

I don't feel it's appropriate to give an explicit guideline of "use regular autosteel, not simple autosteel", precisely because of the kind of levels mentioned before.

So mossy steel decoration is still common, and people want it in contemporary levels? Then yeah, recommend either autosteel.

is anyone seriously going to think the mossy parts in Steel Works are, in fact, not steel?

Many authors feel the moss should be steel.

I feel the moss should be destructible.

The indestructible moss has always rubbed me the wrong way as a child. I've never talked about it much. I should probably make a dedicated thread for steel decoration. I have to solve this design question for Lix anyway. Lix enforces regular autosteel, and NaOH has reacted by duplicating some of her tiles: one as steel decoration, one as dirt decoration.

The ultimate logic behind this point is that autosteel usually ends up being more accurate and easier to do than manual steel ever does. Many situations in where it is incorrect, Simple Autosteel solves the problem. Ultimately however, there is no difference to the person playing the level between a level that uses autosteel, or even one that uses manual steel areas that just happen to be laid out exactly the same way that autosteel would; so it really does come back to "don't be deceptive" more than anything else. One reason for stressing it is that in DOS / Lemmix levels, and possibly even Lemmini levels, steel areas often tend to extend a bit beyond the edge of the actual steel terrain; this is nessecary in those engines, but gives very undesirable results in NeoLemmix due to the better handling of steel. Made-for-NeoLemmix levels would, I imagine, rarely use manual steel areas in the first place - autosteel was a feature long before any dedicated NeoLemmix content (even my own) existed.

I agree that "don't be deceptive" is the most important goal.

I have read this quoted paragraph 3 times now. Is this (a reason to discourage manual areas), or (a reason to want (simple autosteel along with regular autosteel) instead of only regular autosteel)?

-- Simon

[namida]

The ultimate logic behind this point is that autosteel usually ends up being more accurate and easier to do than manual steel ever does. Many situations in where it is incorrect, Simple Autosteel solves the problem. Ultimately however, there is no difference to the person playing the level between a level that uses autosteel, or even one that uses manual steel areas that just happen to be laid out exactly the same way that autosteel would; so it really does come back to "don't be deceptive" more than anything else. One reason for stressing it is that in DOS / Lemmix levels, and possibly even Lemmini levels, steel areas often tend to extend a bit beyond the edge of the actual steel terrain; this is nessecary in those engines, but gives very undesirable results in NeoLemmix due to the better handling of steel. Made-for-NeoLemmix levels would, I imagine, rarely use manual steel areas in the first place - autosteel was a feature long before any dedicated NeoLemmix content (even my own) existed.

I agree that "don't be deceptive" is the most important goal.

I have read this quoted paragraph 3 times now. Is this (a reason to discourage manual areas), or (a reason to want (simple autosteel along with regular autosteel) instead of only regular autosteel)?

-- Simon

The point is that the end result is more important than how one gets there, but Autosteel is generally the simplest way to get there, and the least likely to have misplaced steel areas.

[Clam]

The mossy-steel issue raises an interesting conundrum. Intuition says there's a steel block underneath the moss and you shouldn't be able to break through it. But by adding the moss you've actually erased the steel, because the physics map is two-dimensional and doesn't support a layer of steel under terrain.

With simple autosteel and manual steel, the player can't determine their extent without experimenting. This applies even if the options are available but not used. The simplest thing is for the moss to always be breakable - what you see is what you get. (As a side benefit, it's easy to create arbitrary steel shapes by erasing (or covering) with terrain .) Yes, this limits decorations a little - but IMHO it's worth it for consistency.



Regarding entrances, I recently had a (brief) discussion with Simon (near bottom of page) about overlaying info on the entrances. There's information hidden from the player currently:

• Entrance order (as mentioned above), though this quickly becomes apparent.
• Which way the lemmings face when spawned (Lix has left-facing entrances, not sure if NL does too); again quickly becomes apparent.
• Time until next spawn; this remains an issue until the last lemming is out, but it's probably more of an issue because of variable spawn interval.

Showing these things gets you closer to "solve the level by merely looking at it". But writing on the map is really ugly . Entrance info is critical at the beginning, but quickly becomes redundant. So I'm not sure how I feel about this, but it's surely worth thinking about. Maybe there are better ways to handle this?

[namida]

    Entrance order (as mentioned above), though this quickly becomes apparent.
    Which way the lemmings face when spawned (Lix has left-facing entrances, not sure if NL does too); again quickly becomes apparent.
    Time until next spawn; this remains an issue until the last lemming is out, but it's probably more of an issue because of variable spawn interval.

The first two fall in the "can deduce by observing the level for a short time without doing anything" category, so I'm not worried about those. (For the record, yes, NeoLemmix does support left-facing entrances.)

The last one is perhaps a more valid point from a theoretical point of view. A while back there was a discussion on whether the mechanics of release rate changing should be altered to have an instant effect rather than an after-the-next-lemming effect, but in the end this proposal was rejected. Outside of this, I can't think of much discussion on the issue of spawn timing, leading me to think it probably isn't a significant enough issue to worry about - I would guess it's one of those things people get used to over time, and it would also help that NeoLemmix's spawn timing algorithm is identical to that of DOS L1 / traditional Lemmix.