Whilst coming up with ideas for the final new skill (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4686.msg80788#msg80788), and previously on the joke ideas (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4529.msg78722#msg78722) page, I came up with the idea of a "Sleeper" or "Waiter" lemming that waits in-place until assigned another skill (without affecting other lemmings in the meantime).
The main thing that ultimately makes this idea somewhat redundant is the fact that Blocker-Walkers can achieve basically the same thing, albeit without the not-affecting-other-lemmings aspect.
Which, naturally, has lead me to thinking... why not allow skills other than Bombers and Walkers to be assigned to Blockers, thus cancelling their Blocker state as well as allowing them to begin performing that skill?
Instant no. Being able to cancel Blockers is one of the reasons why the Walker is so powerful. Not even the Jumper can cancel Blockers in L2. I guess it was set up this way so that the player uses the Attractor more often.
If we now introduce the ability to cancel Blockers in hindsight to any other skill - Shimmiers and/or Jumpers would be the most obvious choices, I guess - this would introduce a bunch of new backroutes into existing levels, at least as far as Shimmiers are concerned (the Jumper still being in its experimental phase right now).
Learning how to free Blockers without using Walkers is one of the main challenges on many advanced levels. These levels would be broken as well if any of the other skills provided on those levels could free the Blocker as well. So allowing other skills to do this would be the easy way out - too easy. ;)
While also not agreeing that this change is for the better in the use case side of things, the bigger issue here is: Changing one of the most basic skills that was in NL from the beginning in an elemental way would lead to a large portion of the custom levels being now totally backrouteble.
So no from me as well.
Rejected. The others pretty much summed it up, but the key thing to me is the extent to which this breaks existing levels, often in the "subtle backroutes are introduced" way (compared to "they don't work", "existing replays break" or "very obvious backroutes might be introduced, but nothing subtle" which I consider at least a bit more tolerable).
However, I will state that the above is not a concern if a new skill can be assigned to a blocker. As long as the difference from other skills can be justified, I'm quite happy for a new skill to be able to - because this doesn't affect existing content in any way.
The walker is really the inconsistent skill.
It's a feature/design of the blocker to be assignable like a faller. We can certainly argue whether this basic design of the blocker makes sense. At least it has yielded interesting level designs where you're forced to place blockers, then must think how to free them later.
QuoteHowever, I will state that the above is not a concern if a new skill can be assigned to a blocker. As long as the difference from other skills can be justified, I'm quite happy for a new skill to be able to - because this doesn't affect existing content in any way.
Well, not unthinkable indeed, but please take really good care before you allow more special cases.
-- Simon