What's your preferences for one-way arrows?

[namida]

So since I'm working on graphic set stuff at the moment, I'm wondering how we want to handle one-way walls in the future.

The way I see it, there's three options:

Option A
Have a consistent graphic for them across all graphic sets. Most likely, recoloring will be possible, but changing the graphic won't be.

Option B
Keep the current system. A one-way wall is placed just like any other object, it can have its unique looks, etc.

Option C
A somewhat inbetween system. Have a set design, which is determined based on the primary graphic set of the level. So for example, fire set arrows can look different from dirt set arrows, but within any given level there's only one type.


Option A is my preference due to simplicity of implementing, but Option C allows a decent amount of flexibility while maintaining compatibility with the "make them a general gadget rather than a special object type" plan (essentially, they'd work more like steel areas than like objects), while Option B involves the least new work.

[IchoTolot]

I would vote for C as I quite like the different arrow styles, especially the custom ones like in Gronklings menace tileset.  You just take the ones you like from the main graphic set and you are fine.

A would be my 2nd choice as it is like C a general library but only with one style in different colors.



This change in general would also ensure the possibility to fix some animations like the backwards moving blue arrows (and maybe others I missed) without a huge ammount of work (thought of our little Simon here ) + with the change at least some work must be done and why not adding this on the list.

[Dullstar]

I would go for either B or C, since options are nice when they aren't causing problems, and I don't think this option causes any issues. Besides, without the option to have arrows that look different from the standard ones, you could no longer make fire levels that look like they would in the original game.

While we're on the subject of one-way arrows, I figured I'd throw this out there: I much prefer how they are placed in Cheapo, as it's a little easier to work with (for reference, dragging and dropping instead of copy-pasting lots of objects).  But that's probably more work than it's worth to implement, if I had to guess.

[namida]

I figured I'd throw this out there: I much prefer how they are placed in Cheapo, as it's a little easier to work with (for reference, dragging and dropping instead of copy-pasting lots of objects).  But that's probably more work than it's worth to implement, if I had to guess.

To the contrary, NeoLemmix already partially supports this - specifically, you can place "steel areas" that work as one way arrows rather than terrain. The downside is currently, they don't animate if placed this way (they still function perfectly, and are visible, just not animated).

This was done for the purpose of Cheapo conversions; since Cheapo sets don't have animated one-way arrows anyway it doesn't make a huge difference. But I'm somewhat wanting to make this the standard approach to one-way arrows in the future.

[Wafflem]

Option B. I am very uncomfortable about Option A, because there's lots of unique designs of arrows aside from the one in the Fire (Circuit, Psychedelic, Abstract, Clockwork), and I really don't want those to go. Since we're already approaching an Epic tileset-esque level format, it wouldn't hurt to use lots of kinds of designs of arrows in a mix-and-match terrain level.

[Nepster]

Before tackling the question of one-way arrows, I think we should first decide on the overall goal we want to achieve with our decision. For me, the main question is:
In the case of interactive objects like OW-arrows, teleporters, radiation/slowfreeze objects, splitters, buttons, ... do we want
1) a uniform design over all level, or
2) lots of differently looking objects that have the same function?

Choice 1) would make it easier for new players to recognize what the objects do. It would simply remove any questions like: "Is that greenish-blue ball in the horror wasteland tile-set a continuous trap, a radiation object, a teleporter or an (anti)-splat pad?" Instead there would be a set of clearly distinguishable objects (not like the sparkling that sometimes is slowfreeze and sometimes radiation).

Choice 2) would give much more artistic flexibility to graphic style designers, because they can adapt existing objects so that they fit the respective theme.

Once we answered this question, making a choice for one-way arrows is much easier: 
If we want to go into the direction of choice 1), then having a uniform style as in option A is the way to go. But we certainly have to allow for lots of different colors, so that the arrows stay clearly visible for the various styles with their different main color schemes.
If we decide to head into the direction of choice 2), then option B fits very well, because it allows the same flexibility than we would get for any other object.

I myself would push for a uniform style for interactive objects (except for exits, traps and possibly hatches), just because I had problems recognizing some of the objects in the past. And if today's comment in IRC

[15:25:29] <namida42> Flopsy: re level 14, that weird object is a receiver

is anything to go by, then I am not the only one with this problem.
And I certainly wouldn't miss some of the custom one-way arrows, like the one for the psychedelic style (which is not very visible on terrain), the clockwork one (which isn't really different from the standard arrows, except that they sometimes move in the wrong direction) or the (custom) menace one (which is a very deformed and not really recognizable arrow). 

[Flopsy]

Because I'm more of a stickler to routine, I'd rather option B since I've gotten used to the way the one way arrows currently are and have no issues with them.

I know it doesn't add much to the discussion but with what other people have written here, I'd say go with whatever option is best

[Simon]

uniform style for interactive objects (except for exits, traps and possibly hatches), just because I had problems recognizing some of the objects in the past. And if today's comment in IRC

[15:25:29] <namida42> Flopsy: re level 14, that weird object is a receiver

is anything to go by, then I am not the only one with this problem.

Extremely important for gadgets that aren't OWWs. Still important for OWWs.

L1 had consistent gadgets: An exit is an archway with flames at the top. Hatches varied even less. Whatever wasn't obviously a hatch or an exit, was a trap.

L2 had some weird exits. The sports flag is an egregious violation of convention. Be consistent!



Brain dump from an earlier IRC discussion: Maybe OWWs should not be gadgets at all. (OWW left) and (OWW right) can be properties of tile occurrences, similar to dark, noow, mirror, and rotation.

Upside: Ties in well with namida's A or C. You get the consistent look. You can scrap the "allow OWW at all on this tile occurrence" flag. Your UI will match better the designer's mental model: Level designers seem to think more "this part of the landscape shall be OWW" instead of "this rectangular area shall be OWW, it happens to overlap the terrain here". Autosteel is a big hit! OWWs are the same!

Downside: Where should the arrows start per tile occurrence? Will they tile well across different tiles? If they tile according to global coordinates, can you still align them nicely with your surroundings, or does it impact level design?

-- Simon

[namida]

Brain dump from an earlier IRC discussion: Maybe OWWs should not be gadgets at all. (OWW left) and (OWW right) can be properties of tile occurrences, similar to dark, noow, mirror, and rotation.

Upside: Ties in well with namida's A or C. You get the consistent look. You can scrap the "allow OWW at all on this tile occurrence" flag. Your UI will match better the designer's mental model: Level designers seem to think more "this part of the landscape shall be OWW" instead of "this rectangular area shall be OWW, it happens to overlap the terrain here".

Downside: Where should the arrows start per tile occurrence? Will they tile well across different tiles? If they tile according to global coordinates, can you still align them nicely with your surroundings, or does it impact level design?

This is also a viable option; and it is compatible with two of the three suggestions in the original post as well.

Tiling, perhaps allowance could be made for setting an "offset" to where they're drawn. This won't solve every issue, but it might help. An alternatively possibility is some kind of smart tiling, that ensures if any two one-way walls of the same direction have no gaps between them, their drawing position is set so that they tile properly with each other; this may be a bit tricky to code, but I don't think it would be /too/ hard.

[Dullstar]

uniform style for interactive objects (except for exits, traps and possibly hatches), just because I had problems recognizing some of the objects in the past. And if today's comment in IRC

[15:25:29] <namida42> Flopsy: re level 14, that weird object is a receiver

is anything to go by, then I am not the only one with this problem.

Extremely important for gadgets that aren't OWWs. Still important for OWWs.

L1 had consistent gadgets: An exit is an archway with flames at the top. Hatches varied even less. Whatever wasn't obviously a hatch or an exit, was a trap.

L2 had some weird exits. The sports flag is an egregious violation of convention. Be consistent!



Brain dump from an earlier IRC discussion: Maybe OWWs should not be gadgets at all. (OWW left) and (OWW right) can be properties of tile occurrences, similar to dark, noow, mirror, and rotation.

Upside: Ties in well with namida's A or C. You get the consistent look. You can scrap the "allow OWW at all on this tile occurrence" flag. Your UI will match better the designer's mental model: Level designers seem to think more "this part of the landscape shall be OWW" instead of "this rectangular area shall be OWW, it happens to overlap the terrain here". Autosteel is a big hit! OWWs are the same!

Downside: Where should the arrows start per tile occurrence? Will they tile well across different tiles? If they tile according to global coordinates, can you still align them nicely with your surroundings, or does it impact level design?

-- Simon

Tiling could be an issue.  I thought of other issues as well, but then realized they don't always exist.  I think the Cheapo method of OWW definition might give level designers more freedom to choose how the arrows look on a terrain piece.

I think it's important for thematic reasons for there to be variations in objects; even though the exits in the L1 sets all look different, you can tell what they are. While there are some exits that aren't so easy to identify *coughcoughsportstribecoughcough*, I feel like this is more of a tileset design concern; the game wouldn't outright reject tiles that are completely different, but you'd hope designers would have the good jugdement to make sure it's recognizable.

[Nepster]

Brain dump from an earlier IRC discussion: Maybe OWWs should not be gadgets at all. (OWW left) and (OWW right) can be properties of tile occurrences, similar to dark, noow, mirror, and rotation.

For most levels, this would simplify the level design, and thus it is certainly something worth considering to add to NeoLemmix.
Whether this method is good enough to replace the current method is something I far less sure of. Here are two problematic levels coming from NepsterLems (screenshots attached):

51 steps
Here the border of the one-way wall does not align at all with the borders of the terrain pieces. So one has two choices:
1) Either simply make some of the terrain pieces to one-way-walls with an uneven lower border of the one-way-wall. This gets in the way of the player, makes backroutes possible by exploiting the different vertical bottom coordinates of the one-way-wall and confuses players who can never be sure if a certain pixel is really a one-way-wall (because the borders between the terrain pieces are not too obvious).
2) Cut one half away using black terrain pieces and then add the same pieces as no-overwrite. The problem here is, that to get a nice-looking border between normal terrain and the OWW, one has to use precisely the same terrain pieces at the same positions that one has just erased (just now without the OWW-flag). And God help you, if it turns out that you need enlarge the OWW area by a few rows to remove some backroutes...

Tomb Raider
Here we have a completely different problem: The areas with OW-arrows are rather small and it is important for the player to know precisely where the OWWs end (e.g. a climber may bash on the top of the left OWW in the opposite direction). The usual arrows are rather coarse, hence don't give the precise boundaries of the OWWs. My solution here was to use two OWW-objects slightly misaligned, so that twice as many arrows are visible and they fill the terrain area pretty well.

Summary: The current system is more flexible and I am not convinced, that we should trade this flexibility for easier placement of OWWs.

PS: And any comparison with steel areas vs. autosteel (made at one point in IRC) misses one important difference: Steel areas violate WYSIWYG, OWW objects don't.

even though the exits in the L1 sets all look different, you can tell what they are. While there are some exits that aren't so easy to identify *coughcoughsportstribecoughcough*, I feel like this is more of a tileset design concern;

There is one major difference between L1 and NeoLemmix: The number of different interactive objects. In L1 (and even L2) you had to distinguish exits and traps (and about three more interactive objects in L2). But in NeoLemmix we have a dozen new interactive objects, that players have to keep track of. This is a far more complicated task.

...but you'd hope designers would have the good jugdement to make sure it's recognizable.

And you'd hope everything is rainbows and unicorns...
Sorry, but whenever I read that arbitrary users are expected to have good judgement, I hear alarm bells shrilling from all sides.

[Simon]

Excellent treatise, thanks.

The dirt set doesn't have straight horizontal edges, and the OWW area needs a straight bottom. I enjoy how you never have to cut off the arrow graphic. With NL's rectangular fields that nonetheless crop to pieces at wish, you get the best of both worlds.

Is the complexity worth this benefit? In the dirt set, it's almost required.

-- Simon

[namida]

It looks like we're going to be going with Option B, as other changes have made this surprisingly practical.

As you all probably know, we can now mix and match graphic sets together - so it doesn't matter if you're making a Sky level and need a one-way wall, you just borrow the one-way arrows from another graphic set. In fact, we have a graphic set called "default" for much this reason - with one-way arrows that actually change color based on the graphic set (or more precisely, for those who have been following development closely, based on the level's theme).

Another recently added feature is to allow objects to be resizable. So, rather than having to put ten one-way arrow objects, possibly with awkward overlapping, you can simply place one, and resize it.

The one question that remains is a fourth option that was suggested - making one-way-ness an inherent property of a terrain piece, rather than the property just being "one way capable" and needing a seperate object placed. While I like this idea, questions would arise over how exactly to implement it; in particular, it isn't very compatible (at least at a glance) with this otherwise promising system.