I think one potential issue is that NeoLemmix is entirely data driven. There are comparatively few hard-coded strings in the engine that could be localised.
Even if support for different languages was added, this still doesn't update the text of existing levels and level packs. These will only have access to English text, and so no other language translations will exist.

A lemmings pack can contains meny instances of custom text:
- Main menu message ticker (including any custom graphics that pack might use)
- Level pre/post view messages
- Level title, pack name and author
- Level completion screen messages

These level packs will not have any support for translations into other languages. Support for this feature will require a change to both the level file format and the level pack format.

At any rate, the current engine limitations have not stopped users from creating level packs with non-English text. See https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=5206 for an example! 

Hi MasterMatt, and welcome to the forums!

Support for other languages sounds like a great idea! Although a concern I have is that many level packs have custom intro/outro texts which wouldn't be feasible to translate. A screen might end up with a strange mix of French and English text.

Quote from: Simon on October 11, 2024, 11:24:30 PMAnd maybe ∫tan x dx arrives by train and prefers to book tickets in advance?

That is correct. I don't have access to a car for travelling, so I like to plan ahead

Quote from: Flopsy on October 12, 2024, 02:36:35 AMtanxdx could always ride with me in my car to wherever we decide to go, if we decide to do something

That's very kind of you to offer. If we do decide to meet up on the Sunday, I'd like to take you up on that

I'd be interested in a Sunday meetup as well. Leeds/Manchester/Liverpool all sound good to me

257 = A Fermat prime!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat_number

As of writing, only five such numbers are known!

A meetup sounds great! I'll be there

Hi Ichotolot!

There's a few highlights from your replays:

Spoiler

Unfriendly Neighbours - I always love solutions with quick reflexes, and this solution is no different! Have to be quick when there's zombies around!
The Lemmings And Those Lemmings - Oh cool! I've not seen a solution that involves bombing from the right side! Nice lemming control!
Crowd Control - Nice synchronisation with the lemmings and the hatch here!
A Sorting Problem - A very streamlined solution! A kind of "blink and you'll miss it" approach.
Escape From Zombie Island - I absolutely adore the builder/basher staircase solution here! Awesome!

Thank you very much for your replays!

Hi Mobiethian,

Great work on the pack! There's some very nice levels in here, and a great variety of solutions!

I've attached my replays for this pack. Let me know what you think!

Great job!

Hi Mobiethian,

I've played through your levels, and I must say, this is a solid pack! Lots of interesting and beautiful levels here, making great use of the new tilesets!

I've attached my replays for this pack. I think some of them might be backroutes!

Nice one!

Quote from: WillLem on April 02, 2024, 01:28:38 PM
FWIW, searching for that game on Google doesn't bring up LF of the LF Discord. Players must be finding the LF Discord some other way.

It'll be because the moderator goes by Lemming. People will do a search for "lemming discord" and choose the first result.

Quote from: WillLem on March 15, 2024, 09:25:12 AM
Is there an online Worms multiplayer anywhere? I've always thought it'd make an excellent online game, just realised I've never actually looked into whether one exists!

Worms Armageddon is your best bet for that one. The steam version is fully multiplayer capable, with a reasonably active community.

Worms World Party works similarly, but it's much clunkier than Armageddon and much quieter too.

I've given this a bit more thought, and I have to ask a question:

What use is there in counting skill assignments?

Think of an arbitrary lemmings level, a level can be put into two distinct categories:
- Type A: There are exactly enough skills given to solve a level
- Type B: There are more than enough skills given to solve a level

Type A levels are simple enough, and they are plentiful in number; this is the default approach to creating a puzzle that is intended to be difficult.
Type B levels encompass levels such as the classic "20 of everything" style level. Sometimes a level might contain a minimal skillset, while still giving some extra superfluous skills - These levels are also type B.

My point is this:
For type A levels, all solutions will contain the exact same number of skill assignments, since that is the way the level is intended to be solved (backroutes notwithstanding). Thus in regards to score, the skill assignments will not play a significant role at all in determining which replay is "better".
For type B levels, it is highly likely that a solution will not use all of the skills provided. Therefore, in my opinion, the lemming saved count and the time taken would be better metrics for determining score.

Certainly, there is something to be said for a solution that uses minimal skills, but would this not be better suited for a talisman challenge instead of a score metric?

I find replays that save the most whilst also being very fast are more fun to watch. If a replay manages to save a builder, or basher, or whatever, this seems less impressive to me, unless doing so is very challenging. Again, I would consider such a challenge to be better suited to a talisman.

So, of the three obvious metrics - lemmings saved, time taken, skills assigned - should we discard skills and only focus on lemmings and time? If so, this certainly simplifies matters in regards to a scoring algorithm, and for many type A levels the skill assignments would make no difference to the score anyway.

There's also the issue of a positive reward, versus a negative penalty.

It seems logical that each lemming saved contributes positively to the player's score. But what if each lemming lost instead contributed negatively?
For example, each lemming lost is 100 subtracted from the score. Perhaps if the lemming is explicitly killed by the player (like a bomber) the penalty is only -50?

Likewise, should the player be rewarded with points for skills not used, or penalised for skills used? The same goes for time taken.

Regarding the time factor, longer levels are always going to be lower scoring than shorter levels. There's also the issue of proportion:
For a longer level, suppose solution A takes 5 minutes, whereas solution B takes 4 minutes, 55 seconds.
For a shorter level, solution C takes 30 seconds, whereas solution D takes 25 seconds.

In each case, the difference in time taken is only 5 seconds, but that is a much larger proportion for the second pair than the first.
Should scores reflect this?

Quote from: WillLem on February 25, 2024, 03:25:39 AM
Please elaborate!

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/69uv3sgsfg

The graph in the above link is an example of a "diminishing returns" function.
If the input (x) is taken to be the number of frames of a solution, then the output (y) is the score calculated.
There are a few extra variables at play here: (a), (b) and (c).
The value of (a) comes from taking an arbitrary baseline of 2 minutes for an average solution time, we get (2 minutes) * (60 seconds/minute) * (17 frames/second) = 2040. This variable denotes the "max value" of the function.
Variable (b) is a vertical scale factor. Set (b) = 1, to see more clear behaviours of the function
Variable (c) is a kind of "drop off" factor - how quickly the function diminishes
Note that this function yields a higher score for shorter replays, while tapering off for longer ones.
Regarding the note on proportionality above, this kind of function gives a greater score difference for shorter replays than for longer ones.

5 minutes -> 6039 score
4 min 55 -> 6075 score
(36 point difference)

Whereas:

30 sec -> 11643
25 sec -> 12096
(453 point difference)

Of course, this function is merely an example, and I'm not suggesting this particular function even be used at all. My point is, that there can be many "clever" functions out there that take in the information and do wonderful things with it.

That said, however: do we even need to be "clever"?

What if each level starts out with some base score of say 50,000 and actions taken in a solution either add to it or subtract from it? This base score could differ from level to level, allowing users to set their own value for the base score.

See here for an example of the score system in SNES: https://youtu.be/byC680Jde1g

The score seems to be based on the following:
(Saved% * 1000) + (number of skills remaining)

If we wish to expand on this, then I agree that a percentage based system should be in place for the lemmings themselves.
Regarding the conundrum of a level with minimal skills, versus a level with 50 of many skills (or even infinitely many skills available), surely the only metric worth measuring is "how many skills did the player use?"
It does not matter if the level provides infinitely many bashers. High scoring replays should be the ones where minimal skill usage occurs.
Similarly for time limits; it doesn't matter if a level has one minute or infinite time. A solution that takes 30 seconds is a better solution than one that takes 50 seconds.

What is something that needs to be taken into account is the relative weighting of all of these factors.

Suppose we have two replays, both save 100% of lemmings.
- Case A: This replay uses only 3 skill assignments, but takes 5 minutes to complete.
- Case B: This replay uses 25 skill assignments, but is completed in 45 seconds.

Which of these should be awarded more points? Which is more impressive?

Consider the following formula, with arbitrary constants inserted for example:

Score = (%Lemmings saved * 1000) - (Number of skills used * 10) - (Number of frames elapsed in replay)

Number of frames taken covers both time limit and infinite time levels. This also works in the case where a level is extremely minimal - taking less than one second. Negative scores are clamped at a score of zero.

Thus, players are incentivised to save as many lemmings as possible, whilst minimising both skill usage and time taken.
We can generally assume the frame count to be somewhat large in the case of an average level, though this particular metric is heavily biased in favour of shorter levels over longer ones.
Perhaps we could take the square root of the number of frames? Or apply some other kind of function that gives diminishing returns?

Alternatively, consider the following:
Upon spawning into a level, a lemming has a hidden "score count" variable that starts at 1000, and decreases by 1 each second that passes.
This score count decreases by some fixed amount each time a skill is assigned to that lemming. It could be something like -10 points per skill, -20 if a permanent skill is assigned.
When a lemming is saved, its score value is added to the total.

Thus each lemming contributes a different amount to the score, based on its age. Players are therefore incentivised to save lemmings as soon as possible - hastening their solutions.
This also favours solutions with fewer skill assignments too. Since these scores and their penalties are additive, then it does not matter which lemmings receive which skills.
This means that the classic "worker lemming" style levels are not penalised for having one lemming do all of the work.

There are many possible avenues for exploration here.

Quote from: Proxima on February 17, 2024, 11:39:31 AM
Interesting thought, but I don't like this as a replacement for the splat ruler, because it's very often useful to know whether a particular fall will be fatal or not when planning a route, whether or not you have a lemming nearby.

Why not have both? The splat ruler could be changed to remove the climber/window behaviours, and the skill shadow system would cover those cases by itself.