The level design game!

[Dullstar]

OH PLEASE.  I try doing one of the challenges, and it turns out I messed up?
Those rules weren't close to being clear.  Plus, this is what happened when I made a challenge:

1st attempt:  Too subjective, or whatever you guys said.
2nd attempt:  Decided what the point of too hard would be so everyone would know.  I may as well start the "non-strict level design game" if that's the case.

[ccexplore]

Other than some subtlety about "glitch solutions" and what counts as "different routes", it's hard to argue that the rules in namida's challenges are as opened to intepretation as the ones you've come up with.

I think one lesson we've come up with is that it's easy to keep rules objective, but really hard to make rules fully unambiguous, as the latter pretty much requires one to come up with a fully mathematically rigorous definition for everything, and then the rules would end up reading like a college-level analysis (basically, theoretical calculus if you will) textbook.  You won't like it.

So I'll agree that it is somewhat rare to have cases where rules are fully unambiguous, but that's different from requiring rules to be objective.

You're welcome to start whatever new threads you want, but I don't think you'll get anywhere by starting a thread out of arguing with others.  If you recall, the last time an argument erupted over the "quiz game" thread, eventually someone spawned an alternate thread, but ultimately both threads died.

[ccexplore]

Another idea that I think would be more constructive, Dullstar, is why don't you give it another try and we can help you with the conditions of your challenge to make sure they aren't too wildly open to interpretations.

It's not clear to me in the first place why you'd care for solutions that aren't "too hard to find" or stuff like that.  If you think you need help confirming someone's level as meeting your challenge because you might not be able to solve the level yourself or to evaluate possible backroutes sufficiently, just ask for help.

[Pooty]

I've decided to pitch in. I usually find level editing to be quite a pain, but.. this level was a joy to make. Maybe it's because I planned it on paper this time? Who knows. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/laugh.gif" alt=":D" title="Laugh" class="smiley" />

I've tested this level vigorously for backroutes (it probably shows http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/tongue.gif" alt=":P" title="Tongue" class="smiley" />). It's also likely that Fernito's effort will pass this challenge anyway, but whatever the outcome, even if you so happen to find a backroute I didn't consider, it was good fun, and I might try my hand at level editing once more. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/smiley.gif" alt=":)" title="Smiley" class="smiley" />

[Dullstar]

That might help...

HOWEVER, I would make sure that challenge descriptions at least make sense.  On namida's, I would have made it clear that it had to contain all nine, not just one.

Now that I know what the challenge is asking for, Pooty, based on the screenshot I don't think that's gonna fit the challenge. Oh wait, another challenge has emerged.  Not the one I was thinking of.

[ccexplore]

Boy are you behind the times.  I didn't even realize you're still talking about that old challenge of namida's.

IMHO, the only way someone could misread that challenge was if they only bothered to read the first two or so sentences.  Let's take a look:

Build a level that can be solved in 8 or fewer of ANY single skill, and can also be solved with no more than one of each skill.

To clarify, this means:
1) It would be possible if you're given 8 climbers and nothing else.
2) It would be possible if you're given 8 floaters and nothing else.
3) It would be possible if you're given 8 bombers and nothing else.
4) And so on, for every other skill. PLUS:
5) It would be possible if you're given 1 of each skill.

I could see someone who only read the green part to misinterpreted it as "pick just one type of skill and make the level solvable with 8 or fewer number of that skill" instead of "make the level solvable with 8 or fewer numbers of one type of skill, no matter which type you pick".  However, after reading all the stuff following "To clarify...", it's hard for me to see how someone could still misread it.  I'm sorry.

[Dullstar]

I read the whole thing, but it was hard to follow, IMO.

[Fernito]

What's up with Namida? We're only waiting for his approval (or disapproval http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/huh.gif" alt="???" title="Huh?" class="smiley" />) to move up to the next challenge.

[namida]

Oh come on. It doesn't take a genius to see that my challenge has been solved... >_>

[Clam]

As the challenge setter, you're the only one who knows for sure whether the challenge has been solved or not. At least, that's how it is in general - for this challenge it might have been OK to accept it and move on without confirmation. The thing is, I want to avoid the situation where someone posts a level and then it turns out it wasn't supposed to be their turn. So can I ask (this applies to everyone): if you post a challenge, could you please make an effort to check the forums and confirm/reject attempts ASAP?

And I was about to hand this over to you, Fernito, but I found a problem with your level that no one has managed to spot yet. You can turn the lemmings around by making them bash into the steel - see the attached replay. And, unlike the other issue with bashing through steel, I'm fairly sure this doesn't qualify as a glitch - just an intended mechanic used in an unusual way. See attached replay.


So, the next question is: does Pooty's level qualify? (Namida, you'll have to confirm or reject this.)
EDIT: It doesn't, see second attached replay. (At least I don't think this qualifies as "different paths")

[namida]

Unless there's a backroute I'm missing that allows both lemmings to go the same route, then yes, it does.

[Clam]

Oops, I must have been just too late on that edit. I just found such a backroute.

[namida]

Ah, in that case, it does not qualify. I don't really think it qualifies as two different paths, and even if you argue that it does, it doesn't require the minimum 4 skills per lemming.

[Pooty]

I wasn't able to load the replay due to "different mechanics". How do I set up my Lemmix to play your replay?

In the meantime, I did find another backroute, and fixed it here. Is that the same as yours, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

[Edit: Oh wait, you're using Custom Lemmings, aren't you? My fix killed your replay, but it didn't stop the backroute. Hmm.. this is going to be a problem because my level was designed with the original mechanics in mind.]

[Yet another edit: I think this should work. I've added a trap.]

[Fernito]

haha, Clam Spammer, you turned out to be a real nightmare for me! You've found backroutes on every one of my Custom Levels, and then in this challenge http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/tongue.gif" alt=":P" title="Tongue" class="smiley" /> hahaha, j/k!  http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/winktounge.gif" alt=";P" title="Wink-Tongue" class="smiley" />

PS: Let's see if you can backroute the 7th and last level of the pack you're reviewing http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/smiley.gif" alt=":)" title="Smiley" class="smiley" />