Exploders in Lix, with/without fling/timing?

[Simon]

Hi everyone,

Please start a thread ASAP on the forums if you are serious about the bomber changes. -- ccexplore

Here's NaOH's good summary of the perceived problems and proposed solutions, with my annotations in square brackets.


Problems in bombers [= exploders] in Lix:

Problem A. bomber1 (no-fling) [= Lemmings-1-style bomber] is very similar to bomber2 (fling) [= from Lemmings 2]
Problem B. Timers are a nuisance in singleplayer mode, but add fun to multiplayer mode.

Propositions to solve:

Prop 1. Remove bomber1 from both game modes.
Prop 2. Remove timers for both bombers from the singleplayer mode only.
Prop 3. Remove timers for bomber1 in both game modes, no other change. (It's assumed that bomber1 would then be used for singleplayer mode by convention, and bomber2 for multiplayer, but level designers can break convention if they please.)
Prop 12. Both Prop 1 and Prop 2: remove bomber1 from both game modes, and remove the timer from the remaining bomber (bomber2) only in singleplayer mode.


My gut instinct is: If we want to simplify the game, go with proposition 1, cull the L1 bomber altogether. There aren't many levels that explicitly require the L1 bomber over the L2 exploder.

Others have expressed concern for the timing in singleplayer, and how they enjoy untimed exploders in singleplayer. Catering to these wishes, my second choice would be proposition 12, cull the L1 bomber and remove the timing in singleplayer from the L2 exploder.

Please add your opinions, or copy them from the 2015-03-04 IRC log of #lix if you've joined the discussion there.

Singleplayer nuke is currently set to be the L2 exploder iff this skill appears in the skillset, with 0 or more skill uses. Otherwise, the L1 bomber is used for nuking. Does nuking affect the game enough to be considered here?

-- Simon

[namida]

I'd argue that if the skill already exists, and has been used in levels, don't remove it.

Is there any other difference between the two? I vaguely remember hearing that one gives a larger blast?

[Simon]

Yes about the blast radius. The blast radius of the L1 bomber is the L1 one, and the L2 exploder makes a circle.

Having both bombers has been criticized in 2007/2008 already, the first test players thought they were confusing. I've delayed a solution to this problem back then. I valued the compatibility backwards and forwards of continued support for both. Delaying the cull of a skill, should it happen, is bad, because even more levels will use it.

The number of affected levels going from solvable to nonsolvable isn't too large at the moment. We have 260 levels in the lixlfpack, 110 or so in Clam's pack, and 150 in Rubix's pack. Clam knows that only one level will break, which is OK with him. The lixlfpack can be checked in one go by geoo against his replay collection, using the automatic replay batch checker.

So, while level compatibility can become an issue, it's not my predominant consideration anymore as it was in 2007/2008.

-- Simon

[ccexplore]

Instinctually speaking [read: I didn't spend hours thinking over (or even reading) this whole thing ], I have a hard time with prop 1 or prop12.  Consider the classic singeplayer beginner's setup of using blockers to hold back the crowd, then blowing up the blocker to free the crowd.  If you remove non-flinging bomber1, now the poor player has to deal with the unwanted side effects of the blow-back from the flinging bomber.  Depending on the terrain setup that may no matter at all or may totally matter.  Even when it doesn't matter, it seems to at least invite some extra walking that neither the level author nor the player wanted in the first place.  I suppose you can be given the option to use walkers instead to free the blocker, but since walkers have other uses, doing so may introduce other problems (eg. backroutes) to the level.

That said, I'm open to getting my mind changed/enlightened on this.  For people here who have actually designed and played many (at least more than me) singleplayer levels in Lix, what do you feel about the ramifications of having to replace all nonflinging bombers with either flinging bombers, or some other set of skills to compensate?

That said, can we also consider that maybe instead of focusing on the similarities, we can try to make the two skills feel more distinct then they are now?  Maybe call one of them "dynamite" instead of "flinging bomber", and have (more) different animations and skill icons accordingly?  The fact is, if you don't look closely enough, you can see all kinds of surface similarities between some of the other skills too, like builder/platformer, or maybe even digger/basher/miner.  If those skills differ "merely" by names, graphics and the directions they go, and yet can peacefully coexist, maybe so can the flinging and non-flinging bombers differing "merely" by the presence of knock-back?  Tying in the rest of the discussion, you can make them even more different based on eg. timed/untimed and other such details.

[Proxima]

I agree with ccexplore -- removing the non-flinging exploder entirely is too sweeping a change, and will affect gameplay in far too many ways for it to be appropriate to suggest this for existing levels. That a level remains solvable is a necessary condition, but doesn't mean it has no problems. It may become much harder or more fiddly, and become inappropriate for its place in the level order. Looking at successful replays to see whether they still work is not sufficient -- it doesn't show you how the solving process is affected, or what happens to other possible solutions. There is also the possibility that flinging may introduce backroutes.

I appreciate that some players prefer instant bombers, and they create some new possibilities for interesting levels (e.g. one in namida's LP packs where falling lemmings must bomb correctly to create a path for the lemmings at ground level). So it seems to me that a "best of both worlds" solution would be your (3) -- keep both bombers but make the non-fling one untimed. Thinking about my own levels in the Lix community set, I don't think any would be harmed by this change.

Three levels, "Follow the Yellow Brick Road", "Dr Strangelix" and "Once You Pop You Can't Stop", depend on timed bombers as the main challenge of the level, so if (3) is done these levels must use timed fling-bombers instead, and if (2) or (12) is done these levels must be scrapped altogether.

[namida]

As annoying as it'd be, that level (Cunning 4 from LPII) could be done with untimed bombers. Now, if you want to see levels that actually would not work with the timed bombers... (spoiler'd as this could give away part of the solution)

Spoiler

Fierce 6 from LPIII would definitely be impossible
Dodgy 18 might not be possible either, not sure

Now, back on-topic, if as you say there's also a difference in the blast, then this is even more of a reason to keep both of them. At the very least, maintain support for it in the engine while hiding one from the level editor; I don't advise this option, but it's better than removing it entirely.

[Simon]

Thanks for the replies so far. I'll annotate the main reasons I could make out.

New player screws up his solution by fling-exploder: Even if the player hasn't played the tutorials, not expecting the flinging at all will happen a few times at most. The fling-bomber's approximate effect is easy to anticipate afterwards. It's a normal learning process. Right now, the player has to learn both exploders anyway. Culling bomber 1 will make it easier, not harder, to learn the game.

Solvable levels become harder/easier: This can happen both with untimed bombers and/or replacing them with fling bombers. I'd eat this one, reorder the levels if necessary, and benefit from the better game design.

Solvable levels become fiddly: I don't expect this to happen much, unless the level is already fiddly. Counterexamples are welcome.

Timed bomber levels become obsolete: Not at all. The game helps with execution more than any other Lemmings variant already. Losing the timing fits in line here, and therefore supports the whole-game experience. Here are my opinions on the named levels:

• Follow yellow brick road: Seems good enough with untimed exploders. It might move towards the easier side a little bit, but it will remain a fresh level in the pack. Could work with L2 exploders after slight terrain changes, and is immune to backroutes.
  
• Dr Strangelix: Still entirely nontrivial with L1 bombers, and a great puzzle. This would need heavy terrain changes for L2 exploders.
  
• Once you pop, you can't stop: Would love untimed bombers here. Again, I deem the main challenge to be the planning here. There is a slight chance of backroutes near the exit with L2 flinging.
  

Solved levels get backroutes: This seems the most weightful argument. I can't tell how many levels are liable to backroutes here. When you design something with the L1 bomber in mind, you can be sure right now there won't be any flinging. This guarantee will be gone if the game auto-replaces L1 with L2 exploders. Even unlikely backroutes like in "Once you pop, you can't stop" are risky, because the lixlfpack has been strongly tested.

Making L1 bomber and L2 exploder more different from each other: This is in order if we can't get rid of either one. Important design goals are simplicity and ease of learning. Scrapping the L1 bomber contributes most to this goal, and making it more different from the L2 bomber contributes somewhat.

-- Simon

[NaOH]

I have a hard time with prop 1 or prop12.  Consider the classic singeplayer beginner's setup of using blockers to hold back the crowd, then blowing up the blocker to free the crowd.  If you remove non-flinging bomber1, now the poor player has to deal with the unwanted side effects of the blow-back from the flinging bomber.

Lix has the walker skill, which is greatly preferable to bombers for releasing blockers.

That said, can we also consider that maybe instead of focusing on the similarities, we can try to make the two skills feel more distinct then they are now?  Maybe call one of them "dynamite" instead of "flinging bomber", and have (more) different animations and skill icons accordingly?

This would be the idea of proposition 3, I think. Certainly if proposition 3 is adopted, the icon for bomber2 (which would have a timer) should be replaced with something more like this. (As is, the icon looks almost identical to bomber1's.)

Nonetheless, I don't like proposition 3 because I feel that flingbombers would be used in singleplayer anyway, for clam's excellent flingsanity levels at least. So why not allow timerless (and therefore more easily controlled) flinging in singleplayer?

In multiplayer, sure, leaving things uncontrolled adds chaos and entertainment. But in singleplayer it gets tedious quickly, for me at least.

New player screws up his solution by fling-exploder: Even if the player hasn't played the tutorials, not expecting the flinging at all will happen a few times at most. The fling-bomber's approximate effect is easy to anticipate afterwards. It's a normal learning process. Right now, the player has to learn both exploders anyway. Culling bomber 1 will make it easier, not harder, to learn the game.

I don't think I realized for at least a week after I started playing that there were two kinds of bombers. Even now I get confused as to which icon is which.

[geoo]

For multiplayer, timed fling-bombers are desired. I think this is uncontested. Here the flinging is an important feature, and the timing a balancing measure.

For singleplayer, ease of execution is the paradigm, and we want untimed bombers (it only affects levels that rely on the fact that you cannot bomb within the first 5 seconds, maybe "Hotel in Hell"?). But ease of execution also dictates non-flinging bombers. Here the flinging is a gimmick and not a feature and makes it harder to predict whether a planned out solution actually works, you have to watch out with a climber bomb that you don't send up two climbers too close together (this breaks Absolute Zero), or if e.g. you have to bomb a blocker and lix are trapped in a tight space it can break solutions too (re: walker instead of bomber -- can open up backroutes, so not always an option). The exception are deliberate flinging levels where this is naturally the case. (I claim that they require more trial and error than usual levels anyway because flinging is harder to predict than other skills). Those levels have merit, but to me they don't outweigh the huge bulk of normal levels that benefit from L1 bombers. Though flinging levels tend to be more fiddly by default, leaving flinging levels harder is the main drawback of Proposition 3 compared to Proposition 2.

The advantage of Proposition 3 is that is cleaner and more consistent and doesn't required adding more extra rules to multiplayer over singleplayer. Clam's argument in IRC that you play against other players etc is contrived because there's a difference between a difference in underlying principles and arbitrary inconsistencies that don't follow out of necessity. Multiplayer is always cooperative or competitive, and choosing the latter doesn't make an inconsistency, and things like no pausing follow as a consequence/necessity. If you had no difference in underlying principles, you could scrap multiplayer altogether as it'd be the same as singleplayer.

The argument that you have to learn two new skills which might be confusing is weak if level packs are set up in such a way that fling-bombers are only used for flinging levels (which is what I'd encourage: use the L1 bomber in singleplayer by convention unless it's a flinging level). This assumes that the two symbols become easier to distinguish.

Backroutes are another issue that arises from culling the L1 bomber, and the replay checker making levels easy to test after the change is incorrect too because it checks if a replay works, not if a level is solvable, and most replays will break due to the different crater shape and flinging changing the positions of some lix, even if just by a few pixels.


In conclusion, the only significant drawback of Proposition 3 I see is that singleplayer flinging levels don't become easier to execute.
Proposition 2 has the drawback of inconsistency (unelegant) and essentially requiring the player to learn 4 different versions of the bomber while (currently) making testing multiplayer levels harder.
Proposition 12 (I'm not even considering 1 alone as it unites the major drawbacks of 12 with that you don't actually gain any ease in execution in singleplayer, which is the main point really) still requires to learn two different behaviours (at least not 4) and apart from that has all the drawbacks from Proposition 2. In addition it opens a whole can of worms with regards to testing existing levels, backroutes and goes against the paradigm of ease of execution in single player. To me Proposition 3 is strictly superior to 12 as I don't see how having two bombers with different symbols and different behaviours would be worse than having one bomber with the same(!) symbol behaving differently depending on the game mode. If anything, the latter is more confusing.

[ccexplore]

New player screws up his solution by fling-exploder

Yes, though to be clear that's not really my point.  My point is more that the tacked-on flinging behavior I feel is rarely something that the player or the level author desires in singleplayer.  It feels more like liability in many cases in a way like the timing element can be, perhaps more so since the latter rarely leads to backroutes.  I will acknowledge that I am most probably biased due to prior experience with the Lemmings game.  Then again, I expect so will many players given their likely prior experience with Lemmings.

Important design goals are simplicity and ease of learning.

The "simplicity" goal is arguably already weaken given that we know a perfect adequate game exists using only the "original 8" skills, almost half the number of types of skills in Lix. Sure, some of the new skills are clearly desired, maybe even argued essential, for multiplayer; I'm not sure that's equally the case though for all 7 of the new skills.

That's not to say simplifying is to be given up altogether; I'm just not sure as things already stand, it necessarily deserves the weight being given here.  It is especially odd when arguing in favor of the version of bomber that has arguably less simple behavior.

And of course ease of learning can be addressed in many ways besides reducing number of skills.

I don't think I realized for at least a week after I started playing that there were two kinds of bombers. Even now I get confused as to which icon is which.

And the time I first started played multiplayer without having yet familiarized myself an optimal keyboard setup, I have confused the skills icons between builders and platformers multiple times in the heat of battle.  Sure, the correct lesson there is "learn to use the keyboard".  The more general point is that some of the confusion are due to poor naming and graphics choices, which are possible to address without eliminating the skill.

The fact that we resorted to calling them and thinking of them as "two kinds of bombers" is already symptomatic; it's as if we decided to call platformers "horizontal builders", or miners "diagonal diggers" (especially imagine that you have never heard of or played Lemmings 2, for obvious reasons), because we fail to come up with a better name.  Given how the human mind works, I sincerely expect that having a more distinct name, graphics and animation (maybe even sound! maybe "oh no" for classic and "boom!" for flinging?) would already likely help cut down the confusion between the two skills.  If the player is capable of handling both builders and platformers, I have faith that with more proper distinctions, they can probably handle having both explosive skills, or else perhaps they should consider instead playing other less taxing games, or one of the other many clones flourishing in the community and elsewhere.   [Though to be fair, I suppose you can take that argument and say shoo, Lix will go this way, but hey there're all these other clones if you disagree. ]

Speaking of playing, perhaps experimental validation is in order:  before seriously heading down the route of skill elimination (versus the other non-elimination proposals), actually take the task of updating the existing sets (notably the community set and a few well known ones like Rubix's and Clam's) to use flinging bombers only (or avoid bombers altogether if the result is better) and see what different players think, preferably (but not necessarily) people who haven't played particular levels before.  Making sure to cover a broad range of easy and hard levels of course.  The empirical results would be worth 1000x any theoretical arguments for or against the skill elimination.  I'd see that as a great way to be proven myself wrong for example.  A Lix design context requiring flinging bombers may also be interesting, though I'm not as sure how much that would translate into something that informs the arguments here one way or another.

[geoo]

Speaking of playing, perhaps experimental validation is in order:  [...]

I could use sed to replace all L1 bombers with fling bombers, though I'm not happy to manually adapt all of the levels to work just for an experiment...
Instead, I've had a look at all the Hopeless levels in the community pack to see how they'd be affect if we replaced L1 bombers with fling bombers:

These are the levels providing L1 bombers without requiring 100% to save:

The hotel in Hell: Would allow for a cheap backroute. I have two different solutions, one would break.
Close to the Edge: Allows for trival backroute. Player might have to restart level if placing blockers too close (and lix spill).
Empty Space: Becomes impossible, could maybe be salvaged with a miner.
Hellfire: unaffected
Yuki Muon: unaffected
Bipolar Maniac: Makes level easier to execute while leaving solution similar.
Feel the Pressure: Makes level impossible or at least extremely fiddly.
From the other Side: unaffected
Trading and Cooperating: Breaks level but it could be salvaged with minor modifications
We're in this one together: unaffected (barely, there's a bomber going off close to another worker)
Behind Bars: unaffected
Devil's right hand: I believe most solutions are unaffected
Rhapsody in Blue: Might require restart due to lix spill unless blocker carefully placed
The Continuum Hypothesis: Proxima's solution breaks or at least becomes extremely fiddly. My solution is unaffected.
Won't get fooled again: I think my solution would be affected but might be salvageable, don't know about ccx'
Absolute Zero: becomes impossible
Labyrinth of Despair: unaffected
Brickout: My solution is unaffected, don't know about ccx'
Striking News: Makes level extremely fiddly or maybe even impossible.


Levels with fling bombers:

Panic Attack currently provides both types of bombers, one of each; the L1 one is used to avoid knockback (which would kick one lix into the abyss), and the L2 one is used due to the bigger radius. Level could probably be adapted to use just one type of bombers of either kind.
Merde provides fling bombers, but they are not used in the solution, could easily be interchanged for L1 bombers or removed.
No More Heroes has a fling bomber, replacing it with a normal bomber would ease timing I think.


Hellfire, Behind Bars and one solution to Labyrinth of Despair require the player to be aware not to send the second climber too close to the climber bomb if we gave L2 bombers.

[Nepster]

...and there are some more levels in Hopeless, that would admit new flinging solutions (apart from the two already mentioned by geoo):
- From the other side
- We're in this one together (though one could probably accept this one)
- Devil's right hand (but more due to the bigger blast radius)
- Won't get fooled again
Yuki Muon might be a good candidate as well.

I agree with ccexplore (and others) that flinging in single-player is usually an unwanted side-effect (of course apart from specially created flingsane levels). So I would go either with Prop 3 or simply with renaming fling-bombers and changing the icon.

New player screws up his solution by fling-exploder: Even if the player hasn't played the tutorials, not expecting the flinging at all will happen a few times at most. The fling-bomber's approximate effect is easy to anticipate afterwards. It's a normal learning process. Right now, the player has to learn both exploders anyway. Culling bomber 1 will make it easier, not harder, to learn the game.

Yes, but this would be an argument to cull the fling-bomber, not the L1 bomber . Even after playing through almost all levels of the community level pack and a good part of ClamLix and Rubix's level pack, I still cannot anticipate the flinging distance. Sometimes I plan to fling Lix X to position Y and the maximum I actually manage is about half the way. In other situations a Lix is flung far beyond the actual target...
If you compare that to the L1 bomber: Seeing it twice and you know what you are about. So there is only thing to learn: How to distinguish it from the fling-bomber .

[Clam]

I don't typically advocate adding more options to the game, but: how about implementing Prop 2 as an option, "Untimed bombers in singleplayer"? You can't complain about inconsistency if you have to opt in to it

[namida]

The issues I see with that are:

1. Levels that require using a bomber earlier than timed allows for. This could be avoided by making it a per-level option rather than per-user (at the creator's decision).
2. That could be difficult - though far from impossible - to handle in replays.

[Ben H]

Why can't both co-exist?
If it's because they are similar, well Tribes has a lot of similar skills.
Actually some of them are FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL, just with different names/themes.

With the different exploders though, personally I think they are different enough to warrant their own place.
So I'm of the opinion that they should be left as intended.

Also I think that if the original author designed them as one type of exploder, then you shouldn't change/alter their work in order to squeeze it into your platform/framework. If this can't logistically be done, then you should leave the level out altogether.

I suppose you could argue that moving 1px or 2px (like has been done in some levels), is altering the level. But this does not really affect the game play or the original author's intent. However swapping one type of bomber for another completely changes things... as well as re-designing someone's level to accommodate the changes... when they aren't around to ask if they mind... IDK... to me it feels disrespectful.

Just my 2c.

EDIT: re-reading the comments it seems that most of the original author's ARE around to ask if they are okay with it.
I still think that the different exploders are different enough to warrant their own inclusion.

EDIT2: Another option is making it work for existing levels, but deprecating it for newly created levels... if it is disliked so much.