[Rejected]Cull turning lemmings around in teleporters? [EXP-PLAYER] [DISCUSSION]

[Nepster]

Currently teleporters may turn lemmings around when entering them. More precisely (I think) it works as follows:
- If the teleporter object is set to "Face Left", then all lemmings will be turned around when entering the teleporter.
- If the receiver object is set to "Face Left", this this doesn't influence lemmings at all.
- If teleporter or receiver objects are set to "Flip", then this just mirrors the sprite, but doesn't influence the game physics.

I always found this extremely confusing, both as a level designer and as a player. Actually I only understood this behavior after creating several test levels featuring the various combinations. And as a player I still always expect the lemmings to keep their direction and am rather surpised if I encounter one of the rare levels that uses teleporters turning the lemmings.
In addition the usual teleporters are far more used than the lemming-turning ones. So I suggest removing lemming-turning teleporters completely from NeoLemmix.

[Strato Incendus]

I haven't used this feature myself yet, but merely becoming aware of this possibility makes me take my usual liberal standpoint on this: If it's barely used anyway, where's the harm in keeping it? Especially when you seem to have found existing content using this feature which would get harmed by this?

Teleporters are confusing anyway for people who plan their route through the level ahead of starting the game, because in a level with several teleporters you never know which ones are linked. To find out about that, you'll have to use true physics-mode anyway, and doing that will also tell you the direction the teleporter is facing. So even ahead-planners don't need to wait for a lemming to walk into a teleporter to find out in which direction it is facing.

EDIT: Just noticed the arrows for teleporters and receivers don't actually point left and right, as they do with hatches, but up and down. Would it be possible to make them diagonal?

Like: Arrow up (teleporter) or down (receiver) pointing to the left or the right to show the direction of movement.

[IchoTolot]

I am against the cull.

I used turning teleporters in a number of cases and I am always fair and marked a turn when it's nessesary with arrows or simliar tools. In my levels you always see the turn when it matters! An example would be: "Beware of the Overload"  from contest 10 (+ more from my private level pile). In this case the cull would lead to a totally ugly fix where I need a vertical wall left to the receiver to force a turn. I really would like to keep this function as it provides more control over teleporter set-ups and easy level designing.

Why not simply add an arrow mark in true physics mode for the teleporter to clarify the direction?

[Nepster]

Why not simply add an arrow mark in true physics mode for the teleporter to clarify the direction?

Because (contrary to hatches) the lemming direction depends on the direction from which the lemming enters the teleporter.

[IchoTolot]

Why not simply add an arrow mark in true physics mode for the teleporter to clarify the direction?

Because (contrary to hatches) the lemming direction depends on the direction from which the lemming enters the teleporter.

Then add a "turn" writing to the teleporter.

[Strato Incendus]

Then add a "turn" writing to the teleporter.

*upvote* Simple as that, right?

I'm always for "fixing before culling"! Fixing may require more effort than culling on the programmers' part, I get it, but recklessly culling stuff makes the effort other level creators have put in go to waste.

[Nepster]

I wouldn't call writing "TURN" in clear physics a proper "fix" to the problem. Ideally players would never need Clear Physics mode, so any solution involving it is more of a temporary fix until we get a better idea. The same applies to the visual distinction between teleporters and receivers and the pairing of them.

In my opinion, this discussion shows again the different point of view of you two and myself: You consider the problem from the level creator's perspective, where having the feature doesn't hurt and in some situation makes the level creation easier, but accept on the other hand the additional effort for level players who have to look into clear physics mode.
I consider the problem more from a player's perspective and see the possible confusion with the teleporter direction, but readily accept that level designers may have to put in a bit more effort to adapt their levels to this restriction.

[Colorful Arty]

Why not add a "Face right" box to the object?

[Nepster]

Sorry, but I don't understand your suggestion. Could you add a little more explanation, please?

"Face Left" is a (misnamed) setting in the editor. Usually objects face right (like hatches or preplaced lemmings), and "Face Left" changes that direction. For teleporters this has a different effect: Without this setting, teleporters preserve the direction of lemmings. With this setting, teleporters change this direction.

[IchoTolot]

I also have an idea for the easier understanding in the editor:
Activating "face left" (or "flip" if we merge "face left" with "flip") on either the teleporter or the connected receiver leads for the lems to turn, instead of just the teleporter. This would eliminate the confusing editor variations. If both use "flip" it will still be just a normal turn, so basically an OR switch.

I still think the writing "TURN" is an alright fix, as on most teleporter levels users tend to activate clear physics anyway to observe the teleporter/receiver connections. Also after the first teleport the user immidiatly sees the situation anyway + at least I always mark my turning teleporters where the direction matters with terrain anyway.

[Colorful Arty]

Yeah, Icho's way is better than my suggestion.

[Strato Incendus]

Also after the first teleport the user immidiatly sees the situation anyway

Yeah, that's also my line of thinking. However, I've come to know that some users here have the ambition to solve any level entirely in their head even before the first lemming leaves the hatch... and they therefore generally are not too impressed by this "just send a single lemming in there and see what happens" mentality. That's what I meant by "ahead-planners", the ideal that every level should theoretically be solveable on the very first try if you're clever enough.

Basically, this is the same argument we have with hidden traps: Once a lemming has gone there, you know it's there. But you need to send a lemming there first to find out, and might have to change your solution because of that. Or you need to use true physics mode.

I'm not saying this planning-ahead expectation should have to be met or catered to; I just acknowledge that it exists. Personally I have created several levels that break with player expectations (without being unfair trolling levels) - one example being Paralems' "Skies aflame" which apparently several people considered insolveable just by looking at it .

[namida]

From a level designing point of view: This option may be rarely used, but it allows for situations that would be messy or even impossible without it.
From a playing point of view: Teleporters can already be unclear and need the player to resort to clear physics mode; so it isn't really an issue if there's one more detail that shows up there. It does not add execution difficulty to levels.
From a coding point of view: As I recall, it's pretty much one line of code in the teleporter's activation - "if teleporter has this property, flip lemming's direction". Removing it won't result in any great improvement to the code's tidyness or simplicity.

Overall, I don't see how culling it would be justified - again, it's breaking levels and removing options for level designers for very little benefit, similar to the radiation and antisplat pad culls. Giving the feature a more accurate name in the level editor is definitely a good idea.

[Nepster]

From a playing point of view: Teleporters can already be unclear and need the player to resort to clear physics mode; so it isn't really an issue if there's one more detail that shows up there. It does not add execution difficulty to levels.

This is only true if there is more than one pair of teleporters, but in a lot of cases there is only one. And for those cases, the turning around would be the only reason to look into the clear physics mode.

[Strato Incendus]

again, it's breaking levels and removing options for level designers for very little benefit, similar to the radiation and antisplat pad culls.

You speak from my soul, namida . I don't want to warm up the radiation debate here; there might have been ways to fix the execution issues by implementing blueprints for these objects, but these are a lot more difficult to calculate when the lemming is free to move... so for these objects, "fixing" would probably have required a lot more code.

Anti-splat pads are a different thing: Pit Lems for example contains a level ("Base jumping", LOL 10] where the difference between anti-splat pad and updraft matters. Because splat height seems to be re-calculated starting from the point where the lemming leaves the updraft, so an updraft slightly above the ground will save a lemming passing through, whereas an anti-splat pad won't unless it is built / platformed / stoned into. This level in my view is a strictly fair puzzle that can't be replicated in the New Formats version.

This is also part of the reason why I'm barely using the New Format player yet; I get that a lot of bugs etc. have to be taken care of before new juicy stuff gets added (and adding new stuff is more work, obviously). So far however, I mainly see the removed features, or things that are being changed just for the sake of it, like the new title screen which I find rather ugly. This is a shame, because I appreciate all the time and effort Nepster and colleagues put into this, so no offense here. I just can't see myself using the new formats editor in the near future... unless I'd desperately want to build levels with the spooky tileset.

Any packs that come out exclusively for the new player I will of course attempt to play, also to report any technical issues I might find and thereby help improving the new formats version through feedback.

At the current time however, Raymanni's Halloween pack is the only new formats-exclusive one, and I managed to get stuck on it pretty early . All the other packs I'm currently playing, even if they're already available for new formats as well, I'm still playing on 10.13 - and if it's just for the nicer title screens!

Bottom line is: Don't go on a culling frenzy. Removing more and more things from the new version, no matter how unnecessary or corner-case you might believe them to be, will not attract more players to the new formats version. Why would you "upgrade" to something that can do less than what you had before?

[Dullstar]

Bottom line is: Don't go on a culling frenzy. Removing more and more things from the new version, no matter how unnecessary or corner-case you might believe them to be, will not attract more players to the new formats version. Why would you "upgrade" to something that can do less than what you had before?

I must agree here. The culling is starting to get a little frustrating from a content-maintenance perspective. Why use any features that weren't present in the original games if you can't be confident they won't be culled in the future? In any case where user-generated content is the main appeal of something, maintaining backwards compatibility should be of the utmost importance, and culls fly in the face of this goal. I strongly oppose all further culls.

Incidentally, I tend to use clear physics mode pretty much any time the objects present in a level are more complicated than a hatch and an exit (I like to be able to see all the trigger areas), so I honestly don't have too many concerns about needing to use it to glean this sort of information about various objects.

[Strato Incendus]

I must agree here. The culling is starting to get a little frustrating from a content-maintenance perspective.

That's an additional thing, of course. I have two packs worth of levels, 250 in total, and neither of them will be New Formats-compatible. If I update Paralems and/or Pit Lems for New Formats, I will not replace the radiation / slowfreeze-based levels with different ones. As long as the new formats player merely does less than version 10.13, it will simply have these levels removed without substitute. Because the old versions of the packs are the originals, and I won't give players of the new version anything players of the old pack don't get.

Once the shimmier and jumper are implemented, that would be reason enough for me to create a new pack for the new formats version, and then just throw in the best puzzles from Paralems and Pit Lems, like Flopsy did with the MegSEBytes rank in SEB Lems.

Why use any features that weren't present in the original games if you can't be confident they won't be culled in the future?

Yep, that's exactly the point . I spoke about this in the past as "demotivating new level creators".

Though I usually frame it the other way around: If people like the restrictions of original lemmings so much (with regard to skills and objects, not to execution), why not simply play Lemmix / SuperLemmini? In a lot of levels which are created even today, I still see a massive "bias" towards the classic 8 skills, especially with "X of everything"-levels.

[Nepster]

Bottom line is: Don't go on a culling frenzy. Removing more and more things from the new version, no matter how unnecessary or corner-case you might believe them to be, will not attract more players to the new formats version. Why would you "upgrade" to something that can do less than what you had before?

Totally, absolutely, completely! If I could I would go back to an earlier version of Windows or the Adobe Acrobat Reader (for pdfs). I still use the XP version of Paint, have replaced the Windows Media Player with a different music/video player and this featuritis is exactly the reason why I still don't have a smartphone.
Why? Because all these unnecessary features make it harder to use these new versions!

I must agree here. The culling is starting to get a little frustrating from a content-maintenance perspective. Why use any features that weren't present in the original games if you can't be confident they won't be culled in the future?

As I said previously: The culling stops once the new-formats become stable.

In any case where user-generated content is the main appeal of something, maintaining backwards compatibility should be of the utmost importance, and culls fly in the face of this goal. I strongly oppose all further culls.

Version 10.13.18 remains available, so old levels can still be played, similarly to V1.43 and gimmick levels.
On the other hand: How often did you use the turn-around teleporters (note that teleporters in general will still be available)? I can understand that namida and IchoTolot, who use them in levels are opposed to removing this feature, but I don't get why people who never used these features and probably won't use them in the near future, still feel so strongly about keeping them?

[Strato Incendus]

Version 10.13.18 remains available, so old levels can still be played, similarly to V1.43 and gimmick levels.

Which is why I'm currently going back to 1.43, even if that means dealing with all the shortcomings of the old player again - for both players and level creators.

I can understand that namida and IchoTolot, who use them in levels are opposed to removing this feature, but I don't get why people who never used these features and probably won't use them in the near future, still feel so strongly about keeping them?

Because we don't understand what benefit lies in removing mere options when the existence of these options doesn't cause harm. Your main argument for everything you've removed so far is "it's barely being used", so the casualties you create are always low, but they still are there. And every level creator has to hope his particular levels aren't affected, or has to go ahead and create new ones.

If you go back to old versions of softwares for your personal needs, you must also expect other people going back to either 1.43 or 10.13.18. That seems to collide with your aspiration of making the new formats version the new "standard" here on the forum .

[Nepster]

Because we don't understand what benefit lies in removing mere options when the existence of these options doesn't cause harm. Your main argument for everything you've removed so far is "it's barely being used", so the casualties you create are always low, but they still are there. And every level creator has to hope his particular levels aren't affected, or has to go ahead and create new ones.

No, my main argument for culling is not that it is barely used. Instead it is (copied from the first post):

I always found this extremely confusing, both as a level designer and as a player. Actually I only understood this behavior after creating several test levels featuring the various combinations. And as a player I still always expect the lemmings to keep their direction and am rather surpised if I encounter one of the rare levels that uses teleporters turning the lemmings.

[IchoTolot]

I still think that with a clear physics addition of the writing "turn" and with my proposed simpler rules to set this up in the editor, this confusing part is a complete non-factor. Even now I don't think it is confusing.

Also, just because it caused a tiny bit of confusion on your side at first, culling the entire feature seems like ridiculous overkill. Rather improve then cull! This should always be option 1!

[kieranmillar]

I see teleporters of only doing one thing, moving the location of the lemming. By turning them as well, you're also changing the lemming's state.

[IchoTolot]

I see teleporters of only doing one thing, moving the location of the lemming. By turning them as well, you're also changing the lemming's state.

Why should this be a problem if you see what's up right after the first teleport or when it is written in clear physics mode?

[Dullstar]

On the other hand: How often did you use the turn-around teleporters (note that teleporters in general will still be available)? I can understand that namida and IchoTolot, who use them in levels are opposed to removing this feature, but I don't get why people who never used these features and probably won't use them in the near future, still feel so strongly about keeping them?

Admittedly, at this point it's more of a general discomfort with the culls - it may be a feature that I don't use currently on the chopping block (I'm pretty sure the only level I've ever made with a teleporter was only there to show off the sprite, and I generally only do individual levels rather than full packs now, so I really don't have much content out there), but seeing large numbers of features being culled starts to build concern that maybe the next proposed cull will be something I do indeed make use of.

[Strato Incendus]

but seeing large numbers of features being culled starts to build concern that maybe the next proposed cull will be something I do indeed make use of.

Indeed. Fear tends to generalise . But I'm glad we can agree that culling seems to have become a "trend", and now there's the question how many want to move along with it.

No, my main argument for culling is not that it is barely used. Instead it is (copied from the first post):

Okay, thanks for clarifying this. I didn't mean to misrepresent you, I am referring to your overarching arguments for culling features of any sort. For radiation, slowfreeze, anti-splat pads, and now for reversed teleporters and receivers, the argument "it's not even used that often" has, as far as I remember, always been a part of your argumentative line, as a "redeeming factor" that removing it won't cause lots of damage. Will it might not do any damage to your content, it certainly does to that created by a few other select individuals.

I have understood that for teleporters and receivers specifically, confusion of direction is the main reason you suggested the cull - but I believe this fear should have been reasonably dispelled by now: namida said it's just a single line in the code, IchoTolot has suggested the simple "turn" label, and clear physics mode is something a player has access to all the time. Many tilesets even force you to use it, because their traps are designed to look harmless by nature (like the rock trap in dirt, the ice spike in snow, the grappling hand in purple etc.). So using clear physics should be encouraged in general when taking a first look at a level, in my opinion.


@IchoTolot: In order not to quote your entire post, I hereby put my virtual signature beneath it, because I agree with everything you said on this matter!

[Ryemanni]

I didn't even know that teleporters could change the Lemming's direction. I find it very confusing and don't like the idea.

[Nepster]

Why should this be a problem if you see what's up right after the first teleport or when it is written in clear physics mode? Culling entire features just because of little things that would need slight improvements is a trend that has to stop.

In my point of view I am doing exactly that: Instead of culling teleporters completely, I am fixing the problem and slightly improving them by removing the side-effect of lemmings turning around.

[...] I am referring to your overarching arguments for culling features of any sort. For radiation, slowfreeze, anti-splat pads, and now for reversed teleporters and receivers, the argument "it's not even used that often" has, as far as I remember, always been a part of your argumentative line, as a "redeeming factor" that removing it won't cause lots of damage. Will it might not do any damage to your content, it certainly does to that created by a few other select individuals.

I am not using this as an argument for culling, but to counter the argument "will destroy much content" for keeping.

Can we please get back to arguing about reasons to keep these lemming-turning teleporters? Arguments like "It's a feature, so let's keep it" won't cut the mustard.

[Dullstar]

Currently teleporters may turn lemmings around when entering them. More precisely (I think) it works as follows:
- If the teleporter object is set to "Face Left", then all lemmings will be turned around when entering the teleporter.
- If the receiver object is set to "Face Left", this this doesn't influence lemmings at all.
- If teleporter or receiver objects are set to "Flip", then this just mirrors the sprite, but doesn't influence the game physics.

From my experimentation, flipping influences direction; but I also don't see an option for Face Left. Were these options coupled? (using experimental new-formats)

My personal thoughts on the flipping situation: This option doesn't complicate Teleporters any further, as Clear Physics is a must in any level containing more than one anyway. I propose the following to make this behavior make a little more sense:

• Flipping the teleporter should continue functioning as is.
• Flipping the receiver should ALSO cause lemmings to turn.
• If both the teleporter and the receiver are flipped, I could argue for either behavior.
• Specify which behavior will occur in Clear Physics
• Replace the current teleporter/receiver pair indicator in Clear Physics with a line drawn between them (when the user hovers their mouse over the teleporter, of course - not always!) - it would work better for pairs that are far apart.
• The marble tileset's teleporter should have a different sound effect, because holy crap that thing sounds awful. That sound effect is probably fine for a trap, but defnitely not for a teleporter.

A possible reason the turning behavior is not used much could be a lack of awareness about it. I certainly didn't know it existed until this thread was created.

[Nepster]

From my experimentation, flipping influences direction; but I also don't see an option for Face Left. Were these options coupled? (using experimental new-formats)

Yes, they were combined in the editor due to their very similar nature, though they still exist as seperate flags in the player.

My personal thoughts on the flipping situation: This option doesn't complicate Teleporters any further, as Clear Physics is a must in any level containing more than one anyway.

I agree that Clear Physics is needed in all cases where a level has more than one teleporter. But in my experience most levels just use a single pair.

• Flipping the teleporter should continue functioning as is.
• Flipping the receiver should ALSO cause lemmings to turn.
• If both the teleporter and the receiver are flipped, I could argue for either behavior.

I should have said this already when IchoTolot suggested this, but unfortunately forgot: This would force the player to look at both the teleporter and receiver (or at clear physics mode), instead just at the teleporter. Not sure whether I prefer that...

• Replace the current teleporter/receiver pair indicator in Clear Physics with a line drawn between them (when the user hovers their mouse over the teleporter, of course - not always!) - it would work better for pairs that are far apart.

Interesting suggestion (though slightly off-topic ). As this is somewhat more difficult to code, I would first like to hear more opinions on it before implementing this change.

• The marble tileset's teleporter should have a different sound effect, because holy crap that thing sounds awful. That sound effect is probably fine for a trap, but defnitely not for a teleporter.

As with all suggestions regarding sounds: Please suggest alternatives, that you think fits the object better. It's trivial for me to change it, but I need to know which sound I should change it to.

[namida]

Interesting suggestion (though slightly off-topic ). As this is somewhat more difficult to code, I would first like to hear more opinions on it before implementing this change.

IIRC, TBitmap32 has a "DrawLine" method or something like that which could be used for this.

[Strato Incendus]

In my point of view I am doing exactly that: Instead of culling teleporters completely, I am fixing the problem and slightly improving them by removing the side-effect of lemmings turning around.

Why would anyone even think of culling teleporters completely? I get the feeling you make that comparison to make your suggestion seem less "dramatic" again .

How is simply removing stuff "fixing"? You might "fix the teleporter" as an object, according to your view, but you most definitely destroy levels in doing so. A "fix" shouldn't destroy anything.

In this case, the most obvious proposed fix would require adding something , i.e. additional information visible in clear physics mode.

I am not using this as an argument for culling, but to counter the argument "will destroy much content" for keeping.

No one claims it will destroy much content. But it is certain it will destroy content. Content you personally may find confusing, and which you personally probably did not create. And several people seem to have gotten the impression now, that if you consider a feature to be unimportant and hence want to remove it, it doesn't matter whether they have used it or not.

Even if the overall damage of this specific measure regarding teleporters might be small (again):
- not removing the feature: no harm at all, especially not with adding IchoTolot's "turn" label
- removing the feature: slight harm to some levels by other content creators than you
--> slight harm is still more than none!
- and let's not forget little things add up over time .

Have you calculated the total number of levels you have made worthless for the new formats version during the past weeks through the removal of radiation, slowfreeze, anti-splat pads, and now possibly the removal of the teleporter-receiver reversal feature? Can you make a guess how high it is for all level creators added together?

I can give you my numbers: 9 from Pit Lems, 11 from Paralems, and that's still leaving out those where anti-splat pads could potentially be replaced through updrafts (but are still present in the level). That's pretty much an entire rank worth of levels in total, just for one person. And I've only been here for a couple of months! I can't imagine how much content the older members have created featuring any number of these objects.

I should have said this already when IchoTolot suggested this, but unfortunately forgot: This would force the player to look at both the teleporter and receiver (or at clear physics mode), instead just at the teleporter. Not sure whether I prefer that...

I honestly don't get these minor tweaks about "comfort for the player". We create huge mind-boggling levels that deliberately confuse the player visually all the time, we demand pixel-precision from them and slam tight time limits on top of all that to boot. A single good puzzle might tie the player to the screen for an entire hour. So I believe we can expect this much patience from the player to look at the teleporter and the receiver, which shouldn't take more than 2 seconds, should it?

Arguments like "It's a feature, so let's keep it" won't cut the mustard.

I think it's evident that this is not just about a possibly interesting option being removed, but about actual levels being on the chopping block. But even if it were only about a feature, I agree with Dullstar here:

A possible reason the turning behavior is not used much could be a lack of awareness about it. I certainly didn't know it existed until this thread was created.

Same for me. Becoming aware of it will just naturally make more people want to use it. Thus, making people aware of something by suggesting to remove it is somewhat predestined to backfire .

Replace the current teleporter/receiver pair indicator in Clear Physics with a line drawn between them (when the user hovers their mouse over the teleporter, of course - not always!) - it would work better for pairs that are far apart.

From an ergonomics perspective, this should certainly be much easier to understand than the current letter-coding! The only situation I could imagine this being problematic is when a lot of these lines cross each other. Perhaps just use the letters in addition to the connecting lines, just to be on the safe side?

[namida]

I would say that "not many people use it" is a valid reason for culling a user interface feature. This won't destroy any content, and can fairly easily be re-implemented later (possibly more tidily than it was before) if need be. However, a much stronger reason needs to exist IMO for culling gameplay features. In the case of gimmicks, there were several - relatively low usage, huge mess in the code, etc. Zombies, which were kept, didn't complicate the code too much (they did add a lot of code but the majority of it was seperated, or at least seperatable, from the main code), and had seen high usage, including a couple of entire packs specifically dedicated to them. In the case of two-way teleporters, while they didn't complicate the code much, they had (as far as I know) literally no usage except in converted-from-Cheapo content - which was already going to be incompatible with the newer versions anyway. The same goes for self-contained teleporters, which also could have their functionality perfectly replicated with other, still-supported content (specifically, a regular teleporter / receiver pair that's graphically designed to look like a single large object).

However, a lot of the more recent culls seem to have nothing beyond "They aren't used that much, and some of the community doesn't like them" - most of these don't even go very far towards simplifying the code. The problem is that they are used enough that a significant amount of content needs fixing, and some becomes outright unusable and must be discarded. For example - fake or invisible objects would be revealed very quickly using clear physics mode, and while a few levels did exist that used them solely to troll the player, the majority of cases were for graphical effect - as one example, the locked exit in the Machine graphic set relies on fake objects existing, and the best workaround (with minimal breakage, although some manual effort would be needed for conversion) is in fact to introduce a second copy of the regular exit object that simply has no effect - which in turn shows that the ultimate result isn't that fake objects have been culled as such, they've just been made a bit trickier to use.

[Strato Incendus]

Excellent point! I barely use the machine tileset, so I wasn't conscious of it either, but this is a prime example of how removing something can also cause indirect damage, consequences one wouldn't foresee from implementing the change itself.

[Simon]

UI.

• Each teleporter's and each receiver's graphical design shall be required to have a small square-shaped blank space, visible in normal view = not clear-physics.
• Fill each receiver's blank square, at runtime/level editing time, with a different colored square that contains a symbol to aid the color-blind. Like blocks in Tetris Attack.
• Fill each teleporter's blank square, at runtime/level editing time, with the same symbol as the target receiver. (Teleporters-receivers is an N:1 distribution, therefore color-code receivers first.)
• At runtime/level editing time, on mouse hovering over a teleporter, draw the connecting line on the map from teleporter to receiver; always a single line.
• At runtime/level editing time, on mouse hovering over a receiver, draw the connecting line between this receiver and each connected teleporter; this may be several lines at once.
• No UI idea for turning teleporters.

Thanks to Dullstar for good UI brainstorming.

Gameplay. I don't want to recommend anything because it's backwards-compat vs. clean design. In a completely new game, I'd implement no teleporters at all, or teleporters without turning. Teleporters, and especially turning teleporters, hamper my mental pathfinding.

-- Simon

[Proxima]

• Each teleporter's and each receiver's graphical design shall be required to have a small square-shaped blank space, visible in normal view = not clear-physics.
• Fill each receiver's blank square, at runtime/level editing time, with a different colored square that contains a symbol to aid the color-blind. Like blocks in Tetris Attack.
• Fill each teleporter's blank square, at runtime/level editing time, with the same symbol as the target receiver. (Teleporters-receivers is an N:1 distribution, therefore color-code receivers first.)

This is a pretty good idea to get round one of the problems with teleporters/receivers -- not knowing which is paired with which. However, it doesn't help with another major problem -- not knowing which object is the teleporter and which is the receiver. In most styles they look identical or very similar (Space is a welcome exception, with clear "IN" and "OUT" indicators). Clear-physics only adds up and down arrows as indicators, which doesn't help much as it's not clear which arrow goes with which object type (and I'm not saying this just because I'm new to NeoLemmix; Flopsy frequently gets confused in his videos).

[Simon]

major problem -- not knowing which object is the teleporter and which is the receiver

Idling animations may help? Can have radio waves moving away from an antenna, or moving towards.

Hard to realize with still images. You'd want icons to resemble (moving out of), and (moving into), those must be more elaborate than standalone arrows. If the clear physics mode shows arrows instead of clear words, that's a second issue. English text outside of clear physics feels like a nasty hack in any game about pattern recognition.

-- Simon

[IchoTolot]

We came to a very good compromise in IRC today that I personally think will work for both sides:

Distinguishing teleporters from receivers in general

We will change the sprites of every teleporter/receiver pair to include a writing like the L2_Space ones with either "IN/OUT" or "I/O" depending on the sprites size. This will be added to the guidelines of creating a new tileset with teleporters.

Distinguishing turning teleporters/receivers

We will merge the turning with a sprite flip, so that it is visible from the start that the direction is flipped. The new "IN" and "OUT" writings will make this possible ("NI" and "TUO" for turning ones). This way we can keep the behavior intact while it also being visible from the start.


I think this is a fair compromise that hopefully acts like a sign of new found unity and eases some of the frustraition with all the recent critical culling changes.

[Yung Gotenks]

Noob question: What does culling mean? what is it?

[Nepster]

Noob question: What does culling mean? what is it?

Removing a feature.

[namida]

We came to a very good compromise in IRC today that I personally think will work for both sides:

Distinguishing teleporters from receivers in general

We will change the sprites of every teleporter/receiver pair to include a writing like the L2_Space ones with either "IN/OUT" or "I/O" depending on the sprites size. This will be added to the guidelines of creating a new tileset with teleporters.

Distinguishing turning teleporters/receivers

We will merge the turning with a sprite flip, so that it is visible from the start that the direction is flipped. The new "IN" and "OUT" writings will make this possible ("NI" and "TUO" for turning ones). This way we can keep the behavior intact while it also being visible from the start.


I think this is a fair compromise that hopefully acts like a sign of new found unity and eases some of the frustraition with all the recent critical culling changes.

This sounds like a very good solution to me.

[Simon]

"NI" and "TUO" for turning ones
is a fair compromise

This is tasteless and ugly as hell.

It may be better than no change, but that's not a hallmark since (no change) means obscuring physics. Writing on the gadget was already a major hack before the mirroring.

-- Simon

[mobius]

my usual, unusual opinion:
I don't see what's so confusing and I don't need markers. Just play the game and test things out and see how they work. Take some time and figure it out. I don't need the game spoon fed to me.

"NI" and "TUO" for turning ones
is a fair compromise

This is tasteless and ugly as hell.

It may be better than no change, but that's not a hallmark since (no change) means obscuring physics. Writing on the gadget was already a major hack before the mirroring.

-- Simon

If this was only displayed in true physics mode I wouldn't care at all; as I personally find true physics mode hacky and ugly too and don't use it much.

[mobius]

about teleporters in general:

I think teleporters should always at least try to look unique so you can recognize it as a teleporter or at least recognize it as an object that lemmings can enter to do something. Some objects I've seen don't resemble anything recognizable and I have no idea at first glance what the heck they are. If it looks like a teleporter I wouldn't need labels telling me what it is. And good distinguishers* could be made between the receiver and the output.

Lemmings Revolution did weird things with teleporters: They had two sides each but whatever direction the lemming was facing it would exit the side of the  exit teleporter in the same direction. ...Most of the time. At least one level had all receivers going to one exit and this exit turned the lemmings. I'm not certain on that. But I liked this format as well.

Why can't we just alter the image of a turning teleporter? (if it is a separate object from an ordinary teleporter; I'm not certain how they work). If it isn't then add an arrow of some kind on the top then when flipping it will automatically tell you which direction no matter what; without true physics mode. Also I agree that idling animations might help this issue too. Also really like Simon's suggestion about how to associate which teleport leads to which.

*I know that's not a word.

[Simon]

tasteless

This was a personal attack. I apologize.

I'm happy that you're pushing along for improvement. The discussion is already getting somewhere with mobius's ideas.

-- Simon

[nin10doadict]

Using words like IN and OUT to mark teleporters may not be the ideal solution, but it does work. With so little space to work with in the sprite, it's hard to make a distinguishing marker that isn't just a word.
Unless the teleporters could have idle animations... That could give us some more room to work with to make it clearer what they are. If they have an idle animation it's clear right away that it's an object, and sprited correctly then telling teleporters and receivers apart should be a simple matter. The animation could then be made so that when mirrored there's a visible difference, so you can tell if the teleporters are going to change the lemming's facing or not.

[Proxima]

I think "IN" and "OUT" markers is the best solution. There are no teleporters in the real world, so it's hard to make something recognisable as a teleporter -- and the difficulty is drastically increased when there are so many graphics sets. We should either throw out all the existing teleporter sprites and come up with a uniform appearance, or use markers so that teleporters and receivers are always identifiable, and distinguishable from each other. And I think a lot of people would be very unhappy with the first option

The trouble with mirroring the sprites to distinguish a turning teleporter is that the player doesn't know which one is mirrored and which is normal; it has to be learned separately for every single type of teleporter. (And several of them are symmetrical....)

[Simon]

I think "IN" and "OUT" markers is the best solution.

Better than any other graphical guideline that doesn't resort to blatant text?
Better than whatever is language-independent?
Better than icons that aren't mere arrows?
Better than idling animations?

If text, the antithesis of pattern recognition, were really the best option in such a visual game, that would be a huge red flag that the entire teleporter feature sucks. I hope the feature has merit.

come up with a uniform appearance
or use markers so that teleporters and receivers are always identifiable, and distinguishable
a lot of people would be very unhappy with [uniform appearance]

If "uniform appearance" means that there is only one gadget, and tilesets can't design their own: Agree that people would rage.

If "uniform appearance" means that there is a commonly-agreed-upon graphical feature (not icon) that all teleporters share (all exits have steps and torches, all teleporters have...?), and, likewise, that there is a second, different, commonly-agreed-upon graphical feature that all receivers share, then people wouldn't rage, instead we would have a great solution.

If "markers" mean slapped-on text, it's ugly. If "markers" means these commonly-agreed-upon graphical features, again you have a great idea.

The trouble with mirroring the sprites to distinguish a turning teleporter is that the player doesn't know which one is mirrored and which is normal; it has to be learned separately for every single type of teleporter. (And several of them are symmetrical....)

Agree, the turning remains hard to explain. Might fall back to icons tacked on top of the gadget, either by engine or by a second graphic?



-- Simon

[Simon]

Clarification because a core point by Proxima, rightfully, is that teleporters/receivers don't occur in real life, therefore don't have distinguishers:

Invent a completely arbitrary distinguisher. Maybe all teleporters have antennas with electricity buzzing from them, and all receivers have sattellite dishes. It needn't make sense in real life, but it should be memorable once you've used any teleporter once in NL.

Then make guidelines that suggest to tileset designers these arbitrary, but culturally fixed, distinguishers.

-- Simon

[Dullstar]

I like this icon for turning teleporters. I'd suggest having it appear on mouse-over of a turning receiver. I'd also suggest the IN/OUT text appearing on teleporters/receivers on mouse-over, along with a line connecting the two. This behavior should definitely occur in clear physics, but I'd suggest using it outside of clear physics as well, since there's no visual indication of connected teleporters/receivers anyway. This would create odd behavior if teleporters and receivers were overlain to replicate a two-way teleporter, which would probably be most easily fixed by implementing a proper object for the job.

Flipping the words IN/OUT should be avoided if possible.

[IchoTolot]

Mouseover appreance is a very good idea Dullstar!

A simple mouseover can then tell entrance and exit as well as turning and non-turning apart.

[Nepster]

Given that the sprites with "IN" and "OUT" have been made, I have made the following decisions:
1) Lemming-turning teleporters will be kept. I still disapprove of them, but if they make others happy...
2) However, I will programmatically enforce (both in the game and in the editor) that (paired) teleporters and receivers are both flipped, when they turn lemmings. If either of them read a level where this is not the case, the orientation of the teleporter is kept and the receiver is flipped, so that the game physics are preserved.

I haven't yet made any decision regarding adding mouse-over hints, resp. in what form to add them.