Maximum release rate?

[namida]

I think it's clear enough that I have no plans to remove the RR mechanic from NeoLemmix; but I'm wondering how people feel about the possibility for levels to have a maximum release rate?

[IchoTolot]

Really don't know how to vote here.

Could be overcomplicating the RR too much. Could be leading to further backroute prevention methods or puzzles.

It is also highly depending on the way how it will be implemented in the UI.

I will wait with my vote until the discussion has evolved further.

[Minim]

Lemmings Revolution was one of the games where they had a limited maximum release rate for certain entrances. An example of a level where this was used to great effect was in "Escape to victory" where you're up against a weasel who's coming down the platforms. The path to the exit is easy, but containing the weasel takes some thought. You're just about to relax as you created a path but suddenly before all the lemmings come out of the trapdoor he's right there punching the last few lemmings off the landscape, thus falling short of the requirement.

So I say with the addition of Zombies in this case I think this max release rate idea will work.

[namida]

It is also highly depending on the way how it will be implemented in the UI.

If the decision is to implement it, the next question would be how to show it in the UI.

[bulletride]

If a level needs a maximum RR to work maybe there should just be an option that the level maker can set so that the player cannot change the RR at all?? In that case you can just change numbers to a different colour or add a 'lock' Icon over it.

[Minim]

I like this idea personally. Really doesn't seem to be much point over configuring a release rate between 1 and 50 for example. We could either add a checkbox next to or below the Release Rate box, or label it as a gimmick.

Heck, I might even propose an idea to add more skills in exchange of the RR buttons if we wanted to create a level with more than 8 skills. I remember in an older version of NeoLemmix adding more than 8 skills took away a few other buttons - such as pause and nuke - in the toolbar below. It'd be nice if something like that could happen.

[Simon]

I should write a long article here. >_> The question touches too many fields. Game design, game UI, history of Lix level design, Lemmings Revolution, RR 1 = spawn interval of 53 is WTF, and everything. Nothing but a long article will do that justice.

I feel with Icho. RR-cap is a marginal game rule, it needs good UI support.

-- Simon

[Gronkling]

I think it would just add another layer of complication, and I can see this feature being rarely used. I'm going to vote no for now though I might change it if I see some good ideas how to integrate it.

[Flopsy]

Also voted no myself, I feel 99 RR's are part of Lemmings and despite my well known hatred towards 99RR levels where there are immediate hazards nearby, I am starting to warm to these levels because they add a frantic element.

I'm not opposed to the idea completely although I would choose to avoid the option if it was implemented.

[namida]

Also voted no myself, I feel 99 RR's are part of Lemmings and despite my well known hatred towards 99RR levels where there are immediate hazards nearby, I am starting to warm to these levels because they add a frantic element.

I'm not opposed to the idea completely although I would choose to avoid the option if it was implemented.

Hm, I think we're thinking two different things here? I'm not suggesting "get rid of RR99 and make the maximum that exists something lower", but rather, "allow individual levels to set a maximum release rate, just like they can currently set a minimum".

If I'm not mistaken, Lix already allows this; can any Lix users give an idea of how useful (or not) this feature turned out to be there?

[Proxima]

If I'm not mistaken, Lix already allows this; can any Lix users give an idea of how useful (or not) this feature turned out to be there?

That's true in C++ Lix. The new D Lix has fixed RR for all levels (the designer chooses the value, it's not the same for all).

In the community set, before the migration, there were certainly a small number of levels where a maximum RR (or, as we would say in Lix, a minimum SI) was used to prevent backroutes. Off the top of my head, I can think of "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Lix", "Death or Glory", "Heed the Traffic Light" and the last version of "The Hotel in Hell". (Simon tells me there are actually 67, but it doesn't feel that many. Probably that's because there were many levels where the designer fixed the SI out of preference rather than to prevent backroutes.) "Death or Glory" was a particularly interesting case, because it was converted from a Lemmix level, and the backroute was indeed possible on the original level.

So, overall, it felt like a welcome convenience to have the feature, and it was used enough that new players would easily get used to it appearing, but I wouldn't say it made a huge difference to the game.

[Nepster]

"Heed the Traffic Light" doesn't need fixed SI to be backroute-free. Rather it was a challenge to adapt it to constant SI, which will be needed for D-Lix.

[Simon]

The formula is SI = floor(0.5 * (107 - RR)), therefore RR 1 = SI 53 and RR 99 = SI 4. Lemmings allows a cap from the slow direction (player can't choose a slower SI than the starting value).

C++ Lix allowed to cap the spawn interval from both directions. The extreme values for these caps are 1 and 96. If you set the low cap equal to the high cap, you have fixed the SI for the level (player can't change it at all). The default cap from the fast side is 4 (player can't force lems out faster than RR 99).

Statistics from the Lix community pack in C++ Lix: For the question in this topic, I consider important only levels that fix the SI at something slower than 4. From the 240 levels, 15 levels (6.2 % of all) fix the SI at something slower than 4. The fixed SIs of these levels are:
5, 5, 6, 8, 19, 20, 24, 24, 30, 30, 32, 48, 50, 64, 80.

Counting levels that fix the SI at 4 or faster is less interesting, because the fast-cap is, by default, at min(4, slow-cap). If you include levels that fix the SI at 4 or faster, we arrive at 31 levels, including the 15 levels from the previous paragraph.

Simon tells me there are actually 67, but it doesn't feel that many

I had made a mistake. Reason: Very old levels in the community pack lack a field for fast interval. The game treats them as fast-SI = 4 for backwards compat. When I estimated 67, I didn't deduct such levels from 240, I only deducted from 240 what explicitly said "my fast SI is 4".

-- Simon

[IchoTolot]

I think I will remain neutral in the decision to implement a max RR, as it has both advantages (further tools to backroute prevention and maybe some room for new puzzles) and disadvantages (more complicated RR + UI stuff to be taken care of which could be messy).
If we decide on yes though the new UI for this must be tested very well + also well and intuitive designed

One idea for the UI:

3 buttons:

Left:  "-" displays min RR/lowers RR
Middle: "." current RR/no action
Right:  "+" max RR/rises RR

Get rid of the drawings besides the minimap and we've got the room for that button

[namida]

Another question that's somewhat related is - should the release rate system be simplified overall, in particular, have less increments - perhaps something like 1 to 5, rather than 1 to 99? Some levels would need tweaking, but it would continue to allow puzzles relating to RR manipulation while reducing how fiddly these can get.

Currently, the system allows setting between RR1 (one lemming every 53 frames) and RR99 (one lemming every 4 frames). Perhaps a setting based on 1 to 5 would allow gaps of 4, 16, 28, 40 and 52. At this level of release rate flexibility (or rather, lack thereof), a level could even set allow or deny for each value. (Rule: Lemming spawns every ((5 - RR) x 12) + 4 frames. Equivalent to (respectively) RR 99, 75, 51, 27, 3.

This could be adapted to provide more or fewer increments, if need be. (Perhaps we want it to be 1 to 9, based on ((9 - RR) x 6) + 4 frames - gaps of 4, 10, 16, 22, 28, 34, 40, 46, 52; or equivalent to RRs 99, 87, 75, 63, 51, 39, 27, 15, 3?)

If nothing else, should it at least be simplified to be 1 to 50, given that currently for any even n, RR n is equivalent to RR n+1, giving only 50 different possible delays between lemmings?