What habits or OCD do you have when designing levels?

[Nessy]

This is a random thought that I had and I was curious to see what other people had to say.

What habits or OCD do you have when designing levels?

My OCD when designing levels is that I must have all entrance hatches fully visible at all times. Absolutely no part of it may be covered by another object or piece of terrain. Even if one pixel is covering it… it's unacceptable. The funny thing is I don’t really mind at all if it's partly covered in other people's levels. It’s just that I can't do it myself.

Another thing is that I need to add some type of decoration onto the level. I don't mind playing levels that don't have any, but I like to add something to make the level unique in some way. My level design is kind of in-between a "Mike Dailly" and "Gary Timmons" style of creating levels: I like to create levels that are small and minimalistic (one-screen or 341px wide levels in NeoLemmix), but there's a lot going on in them to give the environment a more lively feel as if the lemmings have fallen into an area that is real and is still active.

What about everyone else?

[Ryemanni]

8x8 and 16x16 grid based levels are my thing. I know that some people don't like them, but I can't help myself.

[Simon]

Overlap with hatches feels OK if least 20 % to 30 % of the hatch's sprite is buried. Then it's snug.

I set spawn intervals to prime numbers, to prevent stacking (= lemmings aligning perfectly with each other in holding pits, making 20 lemmings look like only 2 or 3). I find a chaotic spread more aesthetically pleasing. For the record, Proxima disagrees. I want the crowd to look chaotic. Even when there is no holding pit, if you pause, the walker sprites should all be in different frames.

I used to make levels that seemingly waste a valuable skill: Build single brick to stall. Dig to stall where a digger cancels after one swing and wouldn't change the path anyway. I found that this kind of level feels incomplete and strange: You must focus on the wasteful skill usage, otherwise you get backroutes from the versatile-looking skillset. But afterwards, nobody can ever point to the main idea, and the solution feels hackish.

-- Simon

[Proxima]

Yeah, I like to use round numbers for the spawn interval, and make the level height and width integer multiples of a single screen where possible. I even set the number of lemmings so that the percentage requirement is a round number (e.g. if the level is lose-4, it will be 36/40 rather than 46/50).

I generally stick to the grid, even with rough terrain. I like the way I just have to select between a few possible placements for each piece, rather than agonising over finding the perfect pixel. And hatches / goals absolutely must be on a multiple of 16 (or sometimes 8).

I also like to add decoration outside the playing area. And I always love it when a level makes something that looks like decorative terrain actually be a vital part of the solution

I'm not great at thinking up solutions with main ideas, so instead, I tend to specialise in resource management levels, to the extent that Simon has referred to them as "Proxima-type": there is a restrictive but balanced skillset, no single intended solution, but finding any solution is hard. Often, I make levels like this by starting with the terrain (which may come from duplicating an easy level; basing the terrain on something external, like the Repton levels used for "Toccata" and "Finale"; or combining bits of existing levels), solving the level while trying to keep to a low and balanced number of skills, and setting the skillset to a nice-looking pattern of numbers that just covers the solution I used. Usually, trying to "balance" means trying to minimise the usage of the skills that would be most useful for solving the level (often builders and miners), so these levels end up needing interesting tricks like placing a bridge to connect two blocks so a miner can go through both; turning a digger with a blocker to save a builder; climb-bombers to get a lemming into the right place to start building; and so on.

I like levels that look simple and uncluttered. I'm not a fan of NeoLemmix's overload of object types, and probably will never use most of them. The objects that existed in L1 are plenty enough to make interesting levels with.

[Nessy]

Often, I make levels like this by starting with the terrain (which may come from duplicating an easy level; basing the terrain on something external, like the Repton levels used for "Toccata" and "Finale"; or combining bits of existing levels), solving the level while trying to keep to a low and balanced number of skills, and setting the skillset to a nice-looking pattern of numbers that just covers the solution I used.

I have actually made a few levels like this. Sometimes I don't have any ideas so I just put random terrain pieces together, and then I give myself 10 of each skill, play around with them in the level, and come up with a good solution from there. At the same time, when trying to find that solution I try to find a solution that uses different skills in ways where it isn't obvious where they have to be used and how. One good example is my level "Walking the Blue Mile". If you look at it it's very obvious that I just placed random stuff together, but I think it's a decent level. The skillset is very limited, and it represents the lowest number of skills needed to solve the level. Even in levels where I have an idea on what type of solution I want I still find surprising new ways of doing that solution. Sometimes it's better, and sometimes it's not so I try to prevent it.