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?

[IchoTolot]

The 1 to 5 (and even 1 to 9) idea is too much simplyfied in my opinion. I really like having the option to have control over the exact frame the lemmings will spawn, allowing for sth like setting the exact RR teleporters/traps are able to handle sth. Total control to adapt the level to the solution.
Also it would be a nightmare for the current content.

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.

Some levels? You mean a lot!    10-20 is not avialable anymore - RR in which a digger can make a pit without anyone passing by   (27 too high, 3 too low) 
                                                   90 a good very high RR with a little space between Lemmings to ease assignment --- not avialable anymore
                                                   .......
                                                   I want to have everyone of these at my disposal! I want total control!

Even 1 to 9:  I want to have exactly 31/32 for the space teleporters for example. If I solve a level I want to have exactly X for this task and want to be able to adapt exactly with +/-1!

Also there are a lot of levels that no one would not think of, suddenly need fixes again. It just needs to be the case that the initial RR is not there anymore.

Heavily on RR depending levels could break entirely, as the RR finetuning is too clumpsy suddenly.

For this little simplification it is not worth to take an instance of control away from the player and shake up the existing level world!

Please don't make me make another huge listof level that would break

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?

This is the idea here! Levels wouldn't change and we can throw out half of the numbers, as they were useless anyway. 1 to 50 is the right idea here 100%

Vote 1 to 50!

[namida]

Just to be clear - the two ideas are independant. We could move to a 1 to 5 / 9 / 50 system with or without implementing a maximum RR feature, and vice versa.

[IchoTolot]

Another huge problem came to my mind with RR shortage under 50:

How about we break near to 100% of all replays that don't use one of the then remaining RR'S as the start parameter?

As most custom start RR's are even numbers like 10, 20, 15, 30,....,60, 80, 90...    not 99, 87, 75, 63, 51, 39, 27, 15, 3 as with the 1 to 9 method

So we nearly break all replays with custom RR's other than 1, 99 and the few odd remaining values......what else?

Most level creators set the start RR in a level that doesn't really need the RR to sth arbitrary like let's say 40 for an example. Not only does the replay depend on this as every Lemming other than the first will be at another place after this change, no even the level itself could be built unintentionally to work with start RR 40 then. Of course it could to 99% be altered to work with a new start RR, but it has still to be altered.

So we break I say way over half the replays, break a ton of levels ("most" [not all] of them fixable) .... only to save a few RR steps...... yeah, let's not do that

Yes, the new version will still break ~ 25% of the replays, but in that cases for huge benefits as glitch-free gameplay (hinting at the builder glitch) and consistancy (hinting at wrong facing OWW's).


With RR 50 we still throw out half of the RR values and by dividing the old RR's by 2 we get 100% backward compability .... let's do that instead, shall we?

[namida]

Makes sense.

One further question that arises - would it perhaps be preferable to keep the values at 1 to 99, but only allow selecting odd values? The advantage here is that it would provide little, if any, confusion to people who are used to the existing system - which is virtually all existing players. Or perhaps even set them as 50 to 99, rather than 1 to 50?

[IchoTolot]

Makes sense.

One further question that arises - would it perhaps be preferable to keep the values at 1 to 99, but only allow selecting odd values? The advantage here is that it would provide little, if any, confusion to people who are used to the existing system - which is virtually all existing players. Or perhaps even set them as 50 to 99, rather than 1 to 50?

I see no obvious best route here.

Only beeing able to select odd values "could" also confuse. Personally I would say 1-50 or only odd numbers to 99, but I am not sure.

I think we need to wait for more people to post their opinions here. So to all of you who remained silent until now: We need input!

[Nepster]

1) BulletRide has made some very good points
In Lix the two most frequent settings are (the equivalent of) max RR 99 and a fixed RR. By keeping the current setup for max RR 99 and using grayed out buttons for fixed RR, we can cover these two cases while only adding a tiny bit of complexity. Even better for people who have played the original game (or the current NeoLemmix): The only new part, namely the grayed out buttons, is very intuitive, so they have hardly anything new to learn.

2) Do not use three buttons to adapt RR
As Simon likes to point out: RR changes are not a core part of lemmings (though useful in my opinion). So it should not take too much space. Compared with max RR, I would think that having the possibility to give 9 different skills would be much more useful to level creators.

3) Keep the flexibility to adapt the RR frame-precise
I think most levels could be adapted to use only 10 predefined RR values. However consider for example "Blast the Lemmings" (NepsterLems, Sun 5): The level is possible with RR 99, but the RR is set to 97 (originally 95) because the solution is easier to execute with a little bit more space between the lemmings. So the player profits from the flexibility, even without knowing anything about the RR and how to change it.

4) Use only 1-50 instead of 1-99
I remember that years ago, I spent quite a bit of time on a level, testing every RR (in some interval around 70-85) to find some optimal RR. At that time I thought every RR corresponds to a different distance between subsequent lemmings. So I actually ended up testing twice as many values as actually required, wasting lots of time. So I am very much in favor of changing the way the RR works.
Regarding "odd values in 1-99" vs. "1-50": With only odd values in 1-99, people might feel that we restrict their choices in selecting distances between lemmings. "1-50" doesn't remove this problem completely, but it has a bit more the flavor of a new system (though still similar) which hopefully partially prevents this problem.

[Simon]

Also it would be a nightmare for the current content.
Also there are a lot of levels that no one would think of, suddenly need fixes again. It just needs to be the case that the initial RR is not there anymore.

Yes.

1) keeping the current setup for max RR 99 and using grayed out buttons for fixed RR
2) Do not use three buttons to adapt RR
3) Keep the flexibility to adapt the RR frame-precise

Yes.

4) Use only 1-50 instead of 1-99

Consider 53 to 4 instead of 1 to 50.

Consider 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, ..., 90, 92, 94, 96, 99.

Problem of 1 to 50: You break mental associations between lemmings behavior and certain RR values. In particular, the numbering 1 to 50 ditches the iconic RR 99. Everybody will subsequently talk about "RR 50" and you have to ask them whether they mean L1 RR 50 or NL RR 50.

When you number 53 to 4, you renumber still, but have compensation. Every number describes what it does. Instead of complicated formulas, you have to do nothing.

-- Simon

[namida]

In regards to release rate fixing - based on discussions, I get the idea that most people would be happy with a level having two options to choose from - (a) the existing system, or (b) release rate cannot be changed. (Without any seperate option to set a maximum that isn't 99 or the same as the minimum.) Are there any objections to this?

[bsmith]

After some thought, I find that I adjust the release rate more often than I thought.  Turns out I have many reasons to choose a different, specific rate.  The first is the simple get everybody out reason.  Another is the trick of choosing a release rate to let exactly one lemming slip past a digger pit.  A different crowd control technique I use is to calibrate a release rate to a naturally occurring pen for the crowd.  A example of this is in Sunsoft 13 Doomsday.  The leftmost open chain link is a natural pen for the crowd and I find that by setting the release rate to 3, rather than the default of 1, the crowd all piles on top of each other, rather than spreading out in the pen.

So you can count me in with the people who want to keep the finer control that the current RR system allows.

[namida]

Well, discussion here seems to have died down. V1.47n, while not introducing an option for an arbitrary maximum, did add the option to disallow release rate changes altogether on a level. If people are finding this to not be enough, this subject can be revisited in the future, but for now, we'll consider this discussion closed.