Author Topic: SuperLemmini Wish List  (Read 5841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Proxima

  • Posts: 4321
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2020, 02:17:27 PM »
I'd probably put direct drop mechanics forwards as one such potential enhancement: it opens up more possibilities for alternative solutions, and level designers can build levels with that in mind. At the moment, the only way to make it possible in SL is to provide floaters for every lemming, which is not ideal.

I respect that you have valid reasons for preferring direct drop, but bearing in mind that -- as you've said -- it should not be an option but enabled always if at all, you are very unlikely to get much community support for this move, considering how emphatic was the community support for removing it when it came to decision time in NeoLemmix.

Quote
Why not? We already have NeoLemmix as a clone engine that doesn't include direct drop; why would you be against the possibility of it making an appearance in SuperLemmini?

I take the point about it being a separate engine. But if SL is to thrive in a market already dominated by NL, it will have to attract some of the NL community, which has very firmly decided against direct drop. (That said, not everyone voted against it; and it was a couple of years ago and people have come and gone since then. I'm not trying to speak for the community, just giving an explanation based on my impression of what was said during the original discussion.)

As for why it's disliked: the possibilities opened to the designer are relatively small (you can add small mid-air terrain blocks if you want a drop to be survivable only at a precise point) but the possibility is always there for the player to exploit it in unintended ways. It's an unintuitive mechanic that would confuse new players (remember that not everyone grew up with a version of Lemmings where DD is possible; in fact it's possible on only a few versions) and lead to them getting stuck. It doesn't make physical sense that a fall could be survivable only if there's an exit at the bottom.

Offline WillLem

  • Posts: 1970
  • Just keep swimming
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2020, 02:26:50 PM »
I appreciate everything you're saying, and ultimately it will of course come down to community consensus and/or Tsyu's own preferences and whether or not he wants to implement it; I'm simply requesting the feature at this stage because I would like to see direct drop implemented as an officially intended game mechanic.

To address this point:

It doesn't make physical sense that a fall could be survivable only if there's an exit at the bottom.

I disagree: if you watch direct drop carefully, you can see that the lems never actually touch the floor. Instead, the exit's trigger gathers them up in midair and carries them safely through the exit door. The exit trigger is more like a portal or force field in that sense.

Offline Proxima

  • Posts: 4321
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2020, 02:31:40 PM »
And most exits look like a very mundane doorway, not a portal.

Offline ccexplore

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5311
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2020, 03:24:22 PM »
Which is why such options are exactly that - optional. If all player assist tools are enabled by default, then a new SL player doesn't need to tweak any options, and all levels that they play will be possible. Those who do wish to tailor their experience accept the possibility that they may occasionally encounter a level that requires them to change their preferences slightly.

Hmm ok, that was not clear to me, I was getting the impression you were suggesting to make the assist tools not enabled by default so that the default is closer to the original game.  As long as the defaults maximize solvability, then like you said, players that are unaware of the options will still be able to solve all levels that can be solved.

I disagree: if you watch direct drop carefully, you can see that the lems never actually touch the floor. Instead, the exit's trigger gathers them up in midair and carries them safely through the exit door. The exit trigger is more like a portal or force field in that sense.

That's not how the animation in the game looks like to me.  I see the lemming turning itself 90 degrees facing the exit, and then jumping into the exit, motions which imply the lemming is standing on ground.  I do not see the lemming getting involuntarily pulled or sucked into the exit like you are suggesting.  I don't see it as a kind of portal or teleport at all from the animation.  Lemmings 2's various different tribe animation makes the point even more clear, you see lemmings doing a bow or stumbling drunk during their exit, motions which don't make sense in mid-air.

Also, when you test it out in all the various versions of Lemmings 1 and ONML etc. (regardless of whether they support direct drop or not) by removing all the ground under the exit so that the exit sits in mid-air, you'll see that lemmings will then fall or float through the exit without exiting.  Seeing that, I don't think the game can be any more clear that the lemming needs ground to be able to exit, which kind of contradicts an intepretation of the exit being a portal or similar that can directly suck the lemming out of the level before they hit ground.

Why not? We already have NeoLemmix as a clone engine that doesn't include direct drop; why would you be against the possibility of it making an appearance in SuperLemmini?

Well, you can make that argument for any random behavior that isn't in the game or isn't in NeoLemmix.  DOS Lemmings has the nuke glitch where if you nuke before all lemmings have come out, it calculates the percent save based only on the lemmings that have come out so far, so on an 80-lemming level if you manage to nuke after just 1 comes out and that lemming makes it to the exit before exploding, the game thinks you got 100% saved.  Gee, let's make that happen in SuperLemmini too, even though this glitch doesn't even occur in almost any other ports.

While I'm not strongly against direct drop, this also isn't something that ever feels like a core part of the Lemmings playing experience for most people.  Many versions of the game don't even support it.  And even for the versions like DOS that does, I bet most players aren't even aware it's possible.  No levels in the official games require it, and even when you look into challenge solutions, very few levels use it.  There's also a good chance that sooner or later, you or someone will have to deal with direct-drop introducing backroutes in levels being created.

Given all that, I'd much rather have it made possible in a different way that is also a lot more clear.  For example, you can imagine introducing NeoLemmix-like antisplat fields or objects into SuperLemmini, and then a direct-droppable exit can simply be created by having the hitbox of the exit overlaps with the field, so that it explicitly immunizes the lemmings from splatting.  Players will learn it as a side effect of learning about the new anti-splat element rather than basing on their previous experiences about exit behavior in the original games they played, and level designers can have much better control over when exits can or cannot be direct-dropped into.

Offline WillLem

  • Posts: 1970
  • Just keep swimming
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2020, 06:13:41 PM »
And most exits look like a very mundane doorway, not a portal.

Portals can be disguised as mundane doorways: that's part of their mystique. ;)

by removing all the ground under the exit so that the exit sits in mid-air, you'll see that lemmings will then fall or float through the exit without exiting.  Seeing that, I don't think the game can be any more clear that the lemming needs ground to be able to exit

Hmm. The more I think about it, maybe if it would be very unlike how the game was originally intended, then for that reason it shouldn't be included, particularly in SuperLemmini.

DOS Lemmings has the nuke glitch where if you nuke before all lemmings have come out, it calculates the percent save based only on the lemmings that have come out so far... Gee, let's make that happen in SuperLemmini too, even though this glitch doesn't even occur in almost any other ports.

Haha OK, point made.

While I'm not strongly against direct drop, this also isn't something that ever feels like a core part of the Lemmings playing experience for most people... There's also a good chance that sooner or later, you or someone will have to deal with direct-drop introducing backroutes in levels being created.

OK, this seems like a good reason. However, is direct drop allowing backroutes that big a problem? i.e. more so than any other game mechanic allowing backroutes?

Given all that, I'd much rather have it made possible in a different way that is also a lot more clear.  For example, you can imagine introducing NeoLemmix-like antisplat fields or objects into SuperLemmini... Players will learn it as a side effect of learning about the new anti-splat element... and level designers can have much better control over when exits can or cannot be direct-dropped into.

To be honest, I agree with you on this. Given the reasoning you've put forward, this probably would be a better way to implement it. However, it would involve including elements that weren't part of the original game, which I feel would take some of the edge off what SL is currently about. Then again, direct drop itself would also do this if it was never actually intended as a mechanic in the first place.

I'm beginning to feel convinced that it doesn't belong in SuperLemmini any more than NeoLemmix. However, I would like to know why people are against it as an idea. Like... let's say it was something new that was being suggested as a game mechanic: what would your reasons be for not implementing it? Or - do you like the idea of direct drop? Discuss!
« Last Edit: April 02, 2020, 06:25:40 PM by WillLem »

Offline namida

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 11608
    • View Profile
    • NeoLemmix Website
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2020, 06:32:10 PM »
Quote
(remember that not everyone grew up with a version of Lemmings where DD is possible; in fact it's possible on only a few versions)

And even those who did may not have been aware of it. I grew up mostly playing the DOS version, but I had no idea direct drop was a thing until much later on - even though I did discover several other glitches (such as steel glitches, although I didn't understand exactly how they worked).

Quote
However, I would like to know why people are against it as an idea. Like... let's say it was something new that was being suggested as a game mechanic: what would your reasons be for not implementing it? Or - do you like the idea of direct drop? Discuss!

If it hadn't been present at some point as a glitch, I very much doubt it would have ever come up for discussion full stop, unless it was specifically in the context of "what unexpected features can we put in that the player has to discover for themself, rather than figuring out logically?"

Think about it this way: Pretend no existing version of lemmings has / had direct drop. What might cause you to even think of it as a possible change in the first place, let alone to then think it's a worthwhile and logical feature? All arguments for direct drop seem to come from "some versions of the game already have it" and being used to that (aside from those which come from "I want to make levels that use it to obscure the solution", which is an argument that you already know few if any people here will even give consideration to). It's a behaviour resulting from glitches, not one that could possibly result from any (non-trollish) intentional implementation - other than one that's implemented solely "to replicate what another engine already does", which would be inaccurate in SL's case given that it cites Amiga as its primary influence. Lemmix is a case that indeed should (and does) have it - because Lemmix's entire goal is to accurately reproduce the DOS game, glitches and all.

Offline WillLem

  • Posts: 1970
  • Just keep swimming
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2020, 09:25:40 PM »
And even those who did may not have been aware of it. I grew up mostly playing the DOS version, but I had no idea direct drop was a thing until much later on - even though I did discover several other glitches (such as steel glitches, although I didn't understand exactly how they worked).

Thinking about it, I think my experience of DD came from WinLemm... it certainly won't have come from the Amiga, and I've only ever extensively played Lemmings on either Amiga or Windows (before discovering SL and NL, that is).

Pretend no existing version of lemmings has / had direct drop. What might cause you to even think of it as a possible change in the first place, let alone to then think it's a worthwhile and logical feature?

I think I discovered it from thinking "I wonder if I can drop them straight into the exit". I wish I could remember which level it was or how I discovered it.

It might even have been Feel The Heat - since that essentially is a DD solution, albeit at a safe falling distance. I think I then tried it elsewhere (where the falling distance wasn't safe), and it worked. It was a bit of a Jack Sparrow moment, I guess. ;P

It seems entirely logical to me, because the lemming is falling onto the trigger point. But then... my logic probably isn't anything to base the physical mechanics of a video game on. :crylaugh: :forehead: I can make cute looking characters and cool music though! That's where my thinking is best applied, it would seem.

EDIT: So, it turns out that Direct Drop is possible in WinLemm...! This is almost certainly how I discovered it; I wonder whether it was intended.

EDIT 2: This video perhaps shows WinLemm's Direct Drop mechanism a little bit better - I've set it up so that it's clearly an unsurvivable drop.

EDIT 3: I've made a level that's fun to play in NL, but in the context of an engine with DD and timed bombers, this would be a really decent challenge. It's called Direct Pop, see attached.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2020, 02:16:42 PM by WillLem »

Offline ccexplore

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5311
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2020, 10:05:23 PM »
However, I would like to know why people are against it as an idea. Like... let's say it was something new that was being suggested as a game mechanic: what would your reasons be for not implementing it? Or - do you like the idea of direct drop? Discuss!

If we were creating the game from scratch and intend for this mechanic, I would make it much clearer to the players that it is possible as early as appropriate, and make sure all the detailed design of mechanics and animations etc. are consistent with this mechanic.  And probably make it happen a little more often in the levels so that it's more a core part of the gameplay.  So:

1) Exits in mid-air without any ground can still make lemmings exit.

2) The exit animation would be aware of whether the lemming was on ground vs in mid-air when exit is reached.  If desired, we can still retain the more fancy ground-based exit animations for the ground case, while the mid-air case features a different exit animation that is perhaps more teleporting-like.  This is not unlike how exploders do an "oh no" shrug on ground but skip that while in mid-air.

3) Make sure exit hitboxes extend sufficiently above ground level so that a falling lemming doesn't touch the ground when exiting from a fall.

4) Feature an early level where the exit is mid-air, and the level is constrained enough that the only reasonable solution is to create a path to drop falling lemmings into the exit (as oppose to say, building up to the exit's hitbox).

There are still some edge cases not addressed above, like what happens if the exit is buried enough that the lemming touches ground at the exact same moment it reaches the edge of the exit's hitbox, or what happens if the exit hitbox overlaps with a trap's hitbox.  In other words, multiple different, conflicting effects happening to the lemming at the exact same moment.  You could choose to either give priority to exiting so that the lemming doesn't splat or gets killed, or to give priority to the other effects so the lemming cannot successfully exit.  Either way, ideally maybe introduce a later level that teaches what happens here, although if there are enough other levels to make dropping into the exit relatively common, you could perhaps consider instead leaving it to the players to explore and discover the edge cases on their own.

Offline Dullstar

  • Posts: 1973
    • View Profile
    • Leafwing Studios Website (EXTREMELY OUTDATED)
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2020, 04:31:47 AM »
Within the current framework of Lemmings and the various engines:

Direct drop is bad, full stop. There is no reason to have an engine that supports it. Direct drop is a source of backroutes in well-designed levels and its puzzle potential is limited to misleading levels, because there is no reason for a player unaware of direct drop's existence to even think of trying it.

In any well designed level in any well designed game, the player loses because they messed up, not because the the game took something that should have worked and declared it doesn't work, or because the game expects the player to try something that absolutely should not work (which can lead the player to not bother trying it). Direct drop violates this principle and belongs in the dustbin. Acceptable misdirection is something like a red herring; not something like unexpected details of game mechanics that you'd probably never realize existed unless someone specifically told you they were there, or a level was specifically designed such that trying it would be the only possible move.
 
To make it not bad, you'd need to do as ccexplore says to design an exit from the ground up that establishes fallers are allowed to exit. The current engines give zero reason to believe this is possible.

SuperLemmini already suffers from competition from NeoLemmix and Lix. If SuperLemmini is to survive, it will need to provide a reason to choose it over NeoLemmix or Lix, and it needs to do this through worthwhile features, not through the introduction of features that were rejected from NeoLemmix and Lix due to being bad design.

Offline WillLem

  • Posts: 1970
  • Just keep swimming
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2020, 12:43:13 PM »
If we were creating the game from scratch and intend for this mechanic, I would make it much clearer to the players that it is possible as early as appropriate, and make sure all the detailed design of mechanics and animations etc. are consistent with this mechanic.  And probably make it happen a little more often in the levels so that it's more a core part of the gameplay.

This is a great idea, and I like the various steps you've outlined that could introduce direct drop as a valid game mechanic. This would definitely be a good way to do it. I'd probably add to that the designing of levels that show that it's also possible with an exit on terrain, not just in midair.

Regarding the animation: watch this clip of direct drop in WinLemm (most likely the platform where I discovered it was possible - through trying it out, I hasten to add). To me, this looks like they're bouncing in midair - they never actually touch the floor. Thoughts?

Direct drop is a source of backroutes in well-designed levels and its puzzle potential is limited to misleading levels, because there is no reason for a player unaware of direct drop's existence to even think of trying it.

See this post, above. The only reason I'm even aware of direct drop as a game mechanic is exactly that: I tried it out, and it worked!

Acceptable misdirection is something like a red herring; not something like unexpected details of game mechanics that you'd probably never realize existed unless someone specifically told you they were there, or a level was specifically designed such that trying it would be the only possible move.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. The very definition of a tutorial level is one that only offers one possible solution, and makes it very obvious (take any of the first 7 Fun levels as examples), thus teaching the player a particular skill application or game mechanic. By their very presence, they render any such game mechanics no longer misleading/unknown. You seem to be saying "don't have direct drop, because then you'll have to have a direct drop tutorial level." Well, yes, but surely that's acceptable.

SuperLemmini already suffers from competition from NeoLemmix and Lix. If SuperLemmini is to survive, it will need to provide a reason to choose it over NeoLemmix or Lix, and it needs to do this through worthwhile features, not through the introduction of features that were rejected from NeoLemmix and Lix due to being bad design.

I think that SuperLemmini's best chance of survival is to be different from those platforms, not more of the same. And features that some people consider to be "bad design" are preferred and sought out by others, so I'd say that looking at the possibility of implementing such features is a great place for SuperLemmini to start in its quest to stand out as a worthwhile alternative option.

As a better example of this than direct drop (because unfortunately direct drop was originally a glitch, so its detractors always have that to conveniently refer to when dismissing it), the re-implementation of timed bombers would be a very welcome feature for many players, myself included. Some consider it to be "bad design", others consider it to be a hallmark feature of the original game.

And furthermore, if SuperLemmini makes these things optional rather than forcing players to adopt a particular philosophy, then it becomes an even more attractive option to yet more players.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2020, 02:16:16 PM by WillLem »

Offline ccexplore

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5311
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2020, 10:36:19 AM »
Regarding the animation: watch this clip of direct drop in WinLemm (most likely the platform where I discovered it was possible - through trying it out, I hasten to add). To me, this looks like they're bouncing in midair - they never actually touch the floor. Thoughts?

Based on the video, it looks like WinLemm's version of direct drop is different, and so maybe in WinLemm the lemmings can even exit with the exit completely in mid-air, unlike other versions like DOS where the lemming still has to land but then exits instead of splatting (or if you can see the DOS game's programming, it is first turning the lemming first to splatting and then later to exiting, all before updating the display so you only see the exiting).

I'd love for you to test what happens with the mid-air exit in WinLemm.  Based on the video, it does look like WinLemm can suck falling/floating lemmings in mid-air, unlike most other versions out there.

It still doesn't change the fact that the game never made it any remotely a core part of the experience.  The fact that it never worked on so many other versions, including Amiga being one of the original versions, also shows that it wasn't something DMA intended.  Lemmings 2 also adds emphasize to the land being core to exiting by adding so many tribe-specific elaborate exit animations that only makes sense on land.

Direct drop is a source of backroutes in well-designed levels and its puzzle potential is limited to misleading levels, because there is no reason for a player unaware of direct drop's existence to even think of trying it.

See this post, above. The only reason I'm even aware of direct drop as a game mechanic is exactly that: I tried it out, and it worked!

That's also how most glitches are discovered.  Often even by accident as the player was doing something unrelated but managed to luck into some combination of circumstances and moves that were sufficient to trigger the glitch.  "Someone has discovered it" is by itself not a good argument for making something part of the game.

And in the case of direct drop, it's not even true--the people who only played the versions of Lemmings that do not support direct drop, would actually have come to the opposite conclusion had they tried out what you tried out.

And furthermore, if SuperLemmini makes these things optional rather than forcing players to adopt a particular philosophy, then it becomes an even more attractive option to yet more players.

You are oversimplifying the situation.  For what you are proposing to work out, SuperLemmini still needs to have enough levels that cater to the people firmly on the NeoLemmix philosophy.   If instead most levels are just about, say, timed bombers, without other redeeming qualities for example, then making them untimed just leaves boring levels.  In other words, you want to encourage levels that include things which are a positive for fans like WillLem but strong negative for the NeoLemmix fans.  Allow play assist tools like making bombers untimed, merely turn the negatives in the level into zeros, it doesn't automatically turn them into positives.  The net sum of the level's worth/enjoyment is still lower for the NeoLemmix fans compared to the WillLem fans.  And if the levels tend to lean heavily towards the anti-NeoLemmix stuff, then that resulting lower sum of enjoyment might just be too low for NeoLemmix fans.

Another thing to look at is how NeoLemmix and Lix fared.  In this case, both actually align a lot on most of the philosophies.  You don't end up with equal usage of both.

It's fine that you want SuperLemmini to go in a different direction than NeoLemmix, but it's naive to think that merely having settings to add back the play assist tools would suddenly make SuperLemmini also attractive to NeoLemmix fans.  It's going to be mainly down to the levels, and we know at least some of the levels will not be appealing to NeoLemmix fans, which doesn't exactly encourage them to commit very deeply to using SuperLemmini.  There's also the fact that NeoLemmix now has a greater variety of skills and elements, which may well be a turn-off for some, but it can also add more impediment for people creating SuperLemmini levels if some designs can only be implemented in NeoLemmix.  (Well, there's also the ridiculous fact that SuperLemmini still doesn't even have its own level editor, but let's forget that point and assume it will soon have one, for sake of its long-term survival.)

Realistically, if you want to use SuperLemmini to promote the stuff that turns off NeoLemmix fans, the outcome is that SuperLemmini will attract a different set of people than NeoLemmix.  I think that's fine.  It's good to have variety and just like Lix nowadays serves the niche of multiplayer, it's sensible to have SuperLemmini serves those who desire some of the gameplay aspects that NeoLemmix had moved away from.  Regardless, the people who are currently very happy with NeoLemmix will likely stay with NeoLemmix given that it is more familiar, supports more skills/elements, and the things you suggested so far to add to SuperLemmini are at best don't-cares and at worst turn-offs for them.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2020, 05:37:02 AM by ccexplore »

Offline WillLem

  • Posts: 1970
  • Just keep swimming
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2020, 09:02:51 PM »
I'd love for you to test what happens with the mid-air exit in WinLemm.  Based on the video, it does look like WinLemm can suck falling/floating lemmings in mid-air, unlike most other versions out there.

It is indeed possible to DD into a mid-air exit in WinLemm!

The fact that it never worked on so many other versions, including Amiga being one of the original versions, also shows that it wasn't something DMA intended.

Yes, and to be fair, this would be the only reason I wouldn't implement it in SuperLemmini, i.e. if the decision is to keep it strictly original-game-mechanics-only. That said, if Tsyu and others like the idea of making it an official feature of SuperLemmini, I'm still right behind it.

That's also how most glitches are discovered... "Someone has discovered it" is by itself not a good argument for making something part of the game.

Perhaps not, but my point here is that Dullstar was saying that "there is no reason for a player unaware of direct drop's existence to even think of trying it", and the only reason I even know that it exists anywhere as a game mechanic is because I thought of trying it. I accept that this isn't a reason to implement it, but it proves that a player might try something they are "unaware of" and thus discover its existence.

And in the case of direct drop... the people who only played the versions of Lemmings that do not support direct drop, would actually have come to the opposite conclusion had they tried out what you tried out.

Again, fair point. However, the possibility still remains to introduce such a mechanic: after all, there are ways to inform players of its existence (as you've already elaborated).

And if the levels tend to lean heavily towards the anti-NeoLemmix stuff, then that resulting lower sum of enjoyment might just be too low for NeoLemmix fans... It's fine that you want SuperLemmini to go in a different direction than NeoLemmix, but it's naive to think that merely having settings to add back the play assist tools would suddenly make SuperLemmini also attractive to NeoLemmix fans.

I'm not suggesting the presence of player-assist tools in SuperLemmini be solely for the benefit of NeoLemmixers. Indeed, I myself would likely enable them if I'm playing a custom pack, and I'm sure other players would benefit from them being there as well. The difference is that the tools would be optional. And yes - I know that it's possible to set up NeoLemmix such that there are no Hotkeys for framestepping, and you can choose not to assign skills whilst paused or use CPM, etc. but even I think that's kind of defeating the purpose of NeoLemmix as a platform. :crylaugh:

Ideally, I would prefer SuperLemmini to promote general inclusion: so, there'd be no reason a relatively even-minded player who may prefer NeoLemmix couldn't also play and enjoy a pack of levels in SuperLemmini occasionally. If it happens to allow the presence of features that the more strict NeoLemmixers don't like, so be it.

I for one will continue to use both platforms, hence why I'm suggesting that they remain different from each other. I'll help to boost the presence of SuperLemmini on the forum as much as I can, especially if Tsyu makes the developments that have already been half-confirmed (level editor, player-assist/difficulty options, etc). Something like direct drop is a feature which may be a welcome bonus, but I'd really like to hear from other SL users as to whether or not they'd also like to see it before I go any further with trying to get it implemented.

Please note:

In your above post, you quoted Dullstar as saying:

Quote
And furthermore, if SuperLemmini makes these things optional rather than forcing players to adopt a particular philosophy, then it becomes an even more attractive option to yet more players.

However, it was actually me that said this. Also...

The net sum of the level's worth/enjoyment is still lower for the NeoLemmix fans compared to the WillLem fans.

WillLem fans? Did you mean WinLemm? :lemcat:
« Last Edit: April 04, 2020, 09:17:49 PM by WillLem »

Offline namida

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 11608
    • View Profile
    • NeoLemmix Website
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2020, 09:20:38 PM »
Quote
Ideally, I would prefer SuperLemmini to promote general inclusion: so, there'd be no reason a relatively even-minded player who may prefer NeoLemmix couldn't also play and enjoy a pack of levels in SuperLemmini occasionally

Jacks of all trades are generally masters of none. This would result in an engine not ideal for anyone, in a landscape where most preferences do already have an ideal engine.

Offline WillLem

  • Posts: 1970
  • Just keep swimming
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #28 on: April 04, 2020, 10:07:02 PM »
Jacks of all trades are generally masters of none. This would result in an engine not ideal for anyone, in a landscape where most preferences do already have an ideal engine.

OK, well then in that case I'd probably stand more firmly on the side of SuperLemmini being a genuine alternative to NeoLemmix, Lix, WinLemm and simply playing the original game on an emulator.

I feel a spreadsheet coming on... :crylaugh:

Offline ccexplore

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5311
    • View Profile
Re: Feature requests for next version of SuperLemmini
« Reply #29 on: April 05, 2020, 06:50:39 AM »
Ideally, I would prefer SuperLemmini to promote general inclusion: so, there'd be no reason a relatively even-minded player who may prefer NeoLemmix couldn't also play and enjoy a pack of levels in SuperLemmini occasionally. If it happens to allow the presence of features that the more strict NeoLemmixers don't like, so be it.

That could happen from time to time just like I'm sure people play levels in Lix every now and then.  You could call that inclusion if you want.  Then again, you too are playing NeoLemmix levels right now, so there'd just be equally no reason for someone who prefer SuperLemmini (or more precisely, what you want it to evolve to) to not also play some levels in NeoLemmix from time to time.

Ultimately there is no argument against "inclusivity" per se; certainly it'd be helpful to have player-assist tools as an option, so that people like NeoLemmix fans who consider that essential would have at least one less disincentive in playing SuperLemmini levels.  I'm just pointing out that it's ultimately the levels above all that attract people to a particular game, and it sounds like SuperLemmini may end up with many new levels of the kind that wouldn't hold strong interest for the NeoLemmix fans.  The "inclusiveness" of having player-assist tool options is a fine idea but isn't going to make a difference there.

It also doesn't help that SuperLemmini has been a little behind in both levels and features.  If NeoLemmix were currently much closer to SuperLemmini's current state of affairs, then improving SuperLemmini even modestly could've made SuperLemmini more attractive to use even for the more puzzle-oriented people, and then having more "inclusive" options would be much more meaningful indeed.

In your above post, you quoted Dullstar as saying:

Quote
And furthermore, if SuperLemmini makes these things optional rather than forcing players to adopt a particular philosophy, then it becomes an even more attractive option to yet more players.

However, it was actually me that said this. Also...

Thanks, copy-paste error corrected.

WillLem fans? Did you mean WinLemm? :lemcat:

Nope.  I didn't know what to call it.  It would be some game engine that might be SuperLemmini in the future but isn't quite there currently.  But you seem to be the most passionate proponent so I just stick your name to it. ;)  Yes, I'm aware a normal reading of the English would instead actually mean "fan of the person". :-\