Lix Community Level Set

[mobius]

The bomb/bash part works fine, but I can't get the basher/miner mutual stopping to occur. (This may be a Lix problem rather than a fault in the level design....) Also, the backroute still works; you can prevent it by lowering the ledge under the gap, so that if you fall there, you can't get back up with the 2 given builders.

I can get it to work, but it is hard (took me a few tries). As to the back route, I didn't think to take it out-- it is the way the original level is and I wanted to preserve it. Unless everybody doesn't want multiple solutions, I kinda like having it.
Anyway I fixed another problem where there was a hole in the terrain below the left platform and could've caused problems. I picked a hard level to remake first, apparently.  http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/undecided.gif" alt=":-\" title="Undecided" class="smiley" />

[Nortaneous]

I like the backroute.

Skill swap of that Holey Mountain level that was posted in one of the first pages. Would be a fairly easy level for introducing cubers, I think. I'm not quite sure how good the design is for this concept; I might try to make it into another design and get two levels out of that.

[Proxima]

Confirmed that the basher/miner solution to Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo works as intended on the remake.

I feel that backroutes should always be removed if possible because they make the level a less interesting puzzle; especially in cases like this (and, for example, 1 Taxing) where the main solution is clever and difficult to find but the backroute is far too easy. Sometimes (as with 22 Taxing) a clever backroute can have its own kind of elegance and be worth making into a separate level, but I certainly don't get that feeling from this one.

Solved "Lixology" (Nortaneous's Holey Mountain skillswap). Neat little level. One problem is that you credit the level to "geoo / Nortaneous" but this is too long for Lix's display. I think we need to agree what convention we're going to adopt for when one designer makes a skillswap of another's level -- there are quite a few of these now already, and there will probably be more to come. Any thoughts?

[geoo]

Ok, quite a big update, we're up to about 60 levels now: http://geoo89.github.com/lixlfpack/" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">http://geoo89.github.com/lixlfpack/
Some short notes, hope I didn't forget anything:

Thick Molasses:
I did some slight edits to your levels. Usually cropping the boundaries, or removing the time limits. Tell me if there are any objections.
I added all your new levels but Odd Jobs to the list. For Odd Jobs, shall I replace Slippery Pete with this one (i.e. rename it as Proxima suggested), or keep the name Odd Jobs? My 10/10 solution is attached.

Bridges Burning: I solved it a bit differently, I was just patient with doing the digging at the left, which works out nicely. Not sure which is intended, but interesting level either way. Solution is attached.
The Italian Job: Excellent level, I love it. I found a slightly different solution, not sure whether it should be considered a backroute, I find Proxima's solution more elegant in any case. Solution attached.
Three Days of the Condor: This will probably be the first level in the set where you need miner turning. With the trick being somewhat intuitive, I guess for a first encounter of the trick its usage isn't too obscured (there aren't that many things to try out).
Bibblidi: I find the intended solution a bit hard to execute as the walkway is pretty short for the miner to be in time. Then again, the backroute is easy, but takes a bit away from the level. Not sure what to do about it.
As for walking out of an 8px gap - yeah, that behaviour is different in Lix, I made use of the new behaviour in Bulldozing. Then again, the old behaviour is useful for levels in its own way as well.
Digging in air: Nice remake. That trick offers itself very nicely for cubers as well. (I intended to make a level where the trick is a bit more difficult to see for cubers at some point.)

With regards to rating names: I think it only makes sense thinking about them once the number of ratings is known, which I'm not sure about yet (depends on how many levels we will gather).

Steve:
Razor's, No More Heroes and A Matter of Perspective added, as well as Get Hype updated. Also the Get Hype update with Proxima's skillset, Let's all go down the Strand.

Nortaneous:
Another Lix in the Wall: Liking the design of this one, makes a very nice easier level.

Proxima:
Behind bars: Really love this one. Basically simple and symmetric design, yet having a very interesting solution. Also nice decoration there. It's time to climb added as well, though I'll probably make another separate level for the first encounter of the climber bomb, where it's blatantly obvious that you have to use it.
Halfway down the stairs: Trickier that in looks due to the skillset. I reckon there might be multiple solutions (I was attempting a flinging route at some point, which looked prospective, but was a bit too technical to pursue further). Wonder whether there's a solution needing no precise timing at all.
Vignette, Too Close for Comfort: Very good design with these styles, and showing pretty classic tricks.
Compression Method 2: Not as good as the other ones, especially as the reference is only clear to Lemmings players who remember the level, but still decent. First part is a nice tiny puzzle, and then cuber spamming to get them up (there had to be one level of this kind http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" class="smiley" />). Only thing is, I saved 49 at my first attempt. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/XD.gif" alt=":XD:" title="XD" class="smiley" />

ccx: Will reply to you tomorrow. I'm just too tired right now.

[Nortaneous]

Lixology (anyone have a better name for that level?) could lend itself to interesting challenges. Turns out the level is possible with two cubers.

Here's a sort-of-remake of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeh_WoHfGS" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Lem Dunk. (If anyone skillswaps this, call it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_ferenda" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Lix Ferenda.) It's an easier level, but it could be interesting with a skill swap. (edit: fixed entrance placement)

[Proxima]

Thanks for the list update and all your hard work!  http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/thumbsup.gif" alt=":thumbsup:" title="Thumbs Up" class="smiley" /> Very glad you like my levels, especially Behind Bars which is also one of my favourites.

Halfway down the stairs: Trickier that in looks due to the skillset. I reckon there might be multiple solutions.

Here's the no-miner solution I mentioned. Also attached, Lix Lata ceiling (or at least, non-floor) route. A very nice 10-of-each, many-solutions level, with excellent decorative terrain; I'll try to find a good skill swap that at least enforces using the full level area.

[mobius]

Lixology (anyone have a better name for that level?) could lend itself to interesting challenges. Turns out the level is possible with two cubers.

Here's a sort-of-remake of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeh_WoHfGS" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Lem Dunk. (If anyone skillswaps this, call it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_ferenda" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Lix Ferenda.) It's an easier level, but it could be interesting with a skill swap. (edit: fixed entrance placement)

I like Lem Dunk a lot, good level. Lixety-split? idk...

Alright then, I fixed Bidditi.. so that the other method is not possible, the lower platform is too low now but still high enough to be a possible distraction to a newcomer to the level.
Also, another one I worked on. Idk if it's final yet.

I added all your new levels but Odd Jobs to the list. For Odd Jobs, shall I replace Slippery Pete with this one (i.e. rename it as Proxima suggested), or keep the name Odd Jobs? My 10/10 solution is attached.

thanks for adding my levels. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/smiley.gif" alt=":)" title="Smiley" class="smiley" /> attached is the correct (and final) version of Slippery Pete. 10/10 is required. (I meant it that way in the first place but I made two versions and got confused)
With the Italian Job I tried a bunch of different layouts to implement that dig/bash/build trick and it turned out kinda difficult to implement. Turns out there has to be a pretty specific set of things about the level otherwise it's easy (for the player) to find a way around it.
Nicely done, back-route! I figured something like this would be possible but I just didn't feel like testing it out. Proxima's was the intended solution. I'll let someone else decide which method is better. The extra climber was left in for a distraction. Does it work at all?

[Proxima]

Replay for Dances with Lixes. Very nice level, and excellent decorative terrain!  http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/thumbsup.gif" alt=":thumbsup:" title="Thumbs Up" class="smiley" />

Yes, on Italian Job there's nothing wrong with leaving in the extra climber, as it makes the player look for other possibilities without actually presenting any.

Here's a remake of my Cheapo level "Minesweeper Lemmings" -- without either the Minesweeper graphics or the lemmings, so obviously a new title was called for! I seem to remember that this level was plagued by backroutes and I can't remember whether I fixed them or not, so let's see what you guys find....

[geoo]

Thick Molasses:
My backroute for Italian Job (Simon also found this solution btw) can easily be eliminated by setting the amount of lix higher, 100 should be sufficient (as in future you can set a minimum RR, so you prevent the player from setting it to 1). Tell me if you want me to do that, then I'll just update the level with that.
Attached is my solution for dances with lixes, a bit brute-force unlike Proxima's somewhat more elegant solution. I didn't expect the sand and marble to mix so well, but the sand is saturated enough that it works nicely.
I got two gripes with the latest version of Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo: Biggest one is the hidden traps. Hidden traps are almost always a big no-no. Only thing it does is annoying the player once he finds out while trying to execute his solution. I said almost always because for instance, in Rhapsody, if the traps were hidden, the effect would be that the level would seem utterly trivial, but you'll immediately notice the traps because they're right at the start. Second minor gripe is that besides the trick already being a bit harder to execute, it gets even a bit harder because if you don't bomb very close to the left edge, the builder will be too slow. So it'd be nice if you could perhaps extend the walkway there are a little bit. I haven't seen the original level, but it's a very nice remake.

Pieuw:
Speaking of original, to the latest member Pipouw, are you the same as Pieuw by any chance? In that case feel encouraged to join in! (And even if not, feel encouraged http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/smiley.gif" alt=":)" title="Smiley" class="smiley" />) Reminds me that I should still play many of your levels, the ones I played were very enjoyable.

Nortaneous:
I like Lixology a lot, and I don't mind the name either. I'm not sure whether to include Holey Mountain (did you solve it btw?), as there are levels showing off similar tricks that are nicer than this level. But you can of course use the terrain for your level nevertheless, or try a different design as you said.
Solved Lix Lata, haven't found a good skill swap for it yet though.
As for noting down the author names, I used abbreviations for now when they were too long. The text overwriting the selection menu will probably be fixed in Lix, but then the names would be truncated instead I think, so I feel this is the best option.

Proxima:
Waltz in C Sharp Miner (hilarious level name, really excellent) solved, lovely level, though I have the feeling there's a couple of possible solution, so whatever yours is you might have a hard time enforcing it.
Also solved halfway down without the miner, saves 46/50. The blocker can be avoided, but I used it for easier execution. Checked your solution and it's the same basic idea, but completely different setup. Nice use of the steel in your solution though.

[Proxima]

Waltz in C Sharp Miner (hilarious level name, really excellent) solved, lovely level, though I have the feeling there's a couple of possible solution, so whatever yours is you might have a hard time enforcing it.

Glad you like the level and title http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/smiley.gif" alt=":)" title="Smiley" class="smiley" /> I've attached my intended solution. I could remove yours simply by removing the middle steel block on the left edge of the wall left of the exit, so you can't build to it and climb as you did. However, I'm inclined towards leaving it. Your solution did use fewer skills but it doesn't have a backroute "feel" to it -- it was quite ingenious, used a good amount of the level area, and seems about equally difficult to find as my solution, or perhaps harder (that trick to contain the crowd from the top trapdoor was especially nice). What's your opinion?

This seemed like an ideal candidate for making an easier version -- multiple trapdoors are always fun -- so I've attached one.

[geoo]

Have some more solutions! http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/tongue.gif" alt=":P" title="Tongue" class="smiley" />

Watching your solution afterwards, I see that using the miner at the start to accelerate building over the gap(s) might allow to optimize some a little further. Though what you do at the top right is definitely inefficient (though elegant), as you can save a miner and a builder by simply mining into the wall and catching them with a bridge at the bottom.

[Proxima]

Watching your solution afterwards, I see that using the miner at the start to accelerate building over the gap(s) might allow to optimize some a little further. Though what you do at the top right is definitely inefficient (though elegant), as you can save a miner and a builder by simply mining into the wall and catching them with a bridge at the bottom.

Yes, I noticed that just before you posted http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/tongue.gif" alt=":P" title="Tongue" class="smiley" /> Also, I had a look at the Cheapo version, and it's actually impossible to mine into the wall there since Cheapo doesn't allow you to assign miner to a lemming standing on steel. I've decided to eliminate that route with an extra steel piece.

[mobius]

go ahead and change "Italian Job" the way you said.

As for Pieuw's level, I agree hidden traps can be annoying but I don't think it is in this case. considering that the level is rather small (or quick) and it's rather easy without the trap. Myself I usually anticipate traps like that actually, anytime I see the ceiling close to the ground. Of course the time I played that level I wasn't and was shocked by it, but it made it more challenging for me. I'll take it out if you really want but I think it would drastically change the level.
As for the other problem, I could lengthen the left side again, but I already did once, I think it's intended to be close like that. Did someone (Proxima?) say they spoke to pieuw himself and he said the backroute was not intentional? It just seemed strange to have that lower platform there in the first place and then not notice a solution with that there.

[Simon]

I've just played the current version of Bibbity, and the hidden trap is horrible.

With it, the level stands out against the wide range of levels that follow simple usability guidelines. Why do you hide information from the player unnecessarily? The terrain is easily movable to make the trap fully visible, without enabling backroutes.

Also, please consider taking out the time limit. There's a whole thread about why http://www.lemmingsforums.com/index.php?topic=577" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">time limits are bad unless absolutely nothing else prevents a glaring backroute.

this one isn't too bad -- the bomber to undermine it is the last task you assign, so you can just replay past the difficult bit once you know where the trap is.

No. Without seeing the trap, the player may well have use the exploders before it, and must sort out a larger part of the solution.

I don't want to see a sanitised Lemmings where you always know when you walk under terrain that there won't be a trap there. It just wouldn't be the same game.

Yep, it would be a different and better-designed game. "It's always been like that" isn't a sound argument here.

With the current abundance of honest and good levels, designers cannot afford to mess with a player like this. The player is free to write off the level as annoying and just play another one.

geoo may have a point with Rhapsody (Lemmix version), which wouldn't even require a single skill assignment unless there is something fishy with the walls. Even though Rhapsody breaks a design rule here, it's immediately obvious how it does so, and it takes great care to not mislead the player further. Unlike Rhapsody, Bibbity is not at all trivial even without the trap.

-- Simon

[geoo]

I know it's not my level, but I vote for not changing "The Italian Job". It's not a backroute, it's a clever way of adapting the solution to save a skill. Where possible, it's always nice when levels provide opportunities to reward cleverness by making it possible to save more than the requirement, or use fewer skills.

While my solution for Italian Job might look similar to the intended solution, when I actually found it I missed one crucial aspect of the solution: I use the digger/builder/basher gadget solely for blocking off the right end. The important element I missed is that the additional functionality of the basher, and the different way to send a scout while avoiding the splat height. So conceptually, my solution feels quite a bit different and simpler (and not particularly clever, thus backroutish) to me, and so I'll go ahead and do the proposed change.

The terrain is easily movable to make the trap fully visible, without enabling backroutes.

Good point, that's definitely the best solution for this particular level.

Yeah, that was what I was actually aiming at when I criticized the hidden trap.

But I feel that for a collaborative project like this, it would be appropriate to allow different level designers to make levels in their own styles.

Of course, but within certain guidelines. Some designer may have his own style characterized by levels being "Block off the crowd with a blocker, build from one end of the level to the other, release". For instance, such levels would usually not be welcome, because one guideline is that levels should be reasonably interesting. And one guideline is, to quote Simon, "Don't bullshit the player". Which includes not showing off a level as a genuine and fair puzzle while putting a trap at the end to say "Haha, better luck next time.", which is precisely what happens here. As a player, I don't want to feel cheated. I perceive a difference between genuine difficulty (figuring the idea of a level) and cheap difficulty (simply having to redo a level, possibly entirely scrapping the old solution worked out).

It's about how you present the level. If it looks too easy to be true, and you get a message "Watch out!" via a hidden trap right at the start of the level, that's a different story. Heck, for variety, I'd be fine with a level entirely focused on scouting for hidden traps. But with regards to "expecting a hidden trap everywhere", at least I don't want to go on a scouting mission for hidden traps in each single level before giving the actual level a try (and I'm not sure whether you'd want to). The player can assume everything about the level is presented to him at first glance, and if there is something fishy going on, the player should get the hunch that there is right at the start.

Another guideline I try to follow is "make execution as easy as possible", because difficulty of execution is generally not an indicator of quality. If some trick is intrinsically hard to pull off, fine. If making execution would be at the cost of good design, fine. But when easier execution can be afforded at basically no cost, then I advocate it to be done.
That's why I suggest the starting walkway to be slightly extended. I think "It's intended to be close like that [and subsequently more difficult to execute]" is not much of a reason for keeping it.