2.00 "Disable direct drop" and "Timed bombers" options

[geoo]

The poll currently doesn't support what should be the default option in the case of making it optional.
But I can only repeat my caveat of making it an option from my previous post -- the physics will be inconsistent in a non-obvious way from game to game and players might consider the behaviour impossible when it is needed (even if this might only affect a handful of levels). Leaving it always allowed is preferrable to me over making it an option for this reason.

[namida]

First, decide if there's an option at all; then we can decide on default settings.

And that can easily be solved by displaying in a pack's information whether or not direct drop is allowed.

[Proxima]

No need for an urgent consensus here - but does anyone have any really strong feelings as to why timed bombers should stay? I would strongly like to remove this option if not.

In particular, input from Lix players (who've already gone through such a change from timed bombers to nontimed bombers recently) would be nice to hear.

I've actually changed my mind on this -- I don't think they should stay.

I'll admit, part of the reason I took so long to come over to this view is that I remember how much fun it was to play through Lemmings the first time. Simon or geoo would say "nostalgia" as if that somehow makes my feelings invalid. I can't see what's wrong with looking at what I enjoyed in the past when trying to decide what I would enjoy in the future.

But NeoLemmix (and Lix) are fundamentally different games from Lemmings. Original Lemmings isn't really a puzzle game in the same sense NL and Lix are. Each level presents you with a challenge, and one of the main sources of enjoyment (along with the cuteness, the music, etc....) is satisfaction at overcoming a challenge that frustrated you. Some of this comes from having to work out new approaches -- especially on the levels that come closest to being true puzzles, like Compression Method 1 and No added colours or lemmings. But it also comes from the execution difficulty and the difficulty of resource management -- so I completely disagree with attaching the label "fake difficulty" to bomber timing, at least as regards the original game.

With both NL and Lix, there is a deliberate choice to concentrate on the difficulty of finding solutions, and to remove execution difficulty. Both games now offer frame-stepping, so that you can undo a wrong move immediately and without penalty. Bomber timing just doesn't fit into this framework -- it doesn't add difficulty at all, so there is no satisfaction in getting it right. (Incidentally, this very closely parallels a paradigm shift that has taken place in the DROD series, with the last instalment offering unlimited undo -- and the inevitable heated disputes over whether this is a good thing or ruins the game.)

I don't think the new framework is necessarily better in an absolute sense, but it certainly suits puzzle fans a lot better, as they can enjoy the puzzle aspect of Lemmings/Lix without unwanted execution difficulty getting in the way. And, while I did enjoy Lemmings and I do enjoy some games that are not puzzly at all, such as Touhou, I am also a puzzle fan so I'm happy for NL/Lix to be the way it is

* * *

Moving on to direct drop. I'm pretty sure Simon is correct that it was originally an unwanted side effect of disabling fallers exiting but forgetting that a faller could become a splatter, who could then exit. I seem to remember that ccexplore confirmed this by looking into the code of the original game.

The argument by parallelism with traps doesn't work. Once it's established that lemmings walking into a fire are destroyed, I would expect lemmings falling into a fire to be destroyed. But being able to walk into an exit does not imply being able to fall a long distance and survive if you happen to land on an exit. Lemmings' falling physics are not very realistic, with zero acceleration and with death being determined solely by distance, but since the game includes the ability of long falls to kill, I would expect long falls to kill regardless of what is underneath.

I would also prefer floaters to be unable to exit directly -- and I think that is the case in Mac L1. I could be wrong there, and I don't know at all about Amiga L1.

[Simon]

Proxima: Yes, agree with how L1 didn't want to be a pure puzzle game. There is nothing wrong with nostalgia. Subtractive game design and contemplating old games are different things.

namida: I feel floaters shouldn't exit in mid-air, but I can't make a strong argument, unlike for the fallers/splatters. Lix doesn't allow floaters to exit. Lix only allows lems to exit whenever they could alternatively be assigned builder, basher, miner, or the like.

-- Simon

[namida]

It seems opinion is very mixed here. A lot of the arguments against come from a claim that it's "a bug", which appears to be true for L1 - but virtually since the first release, NeoLemmix has intentionally allowed this; it's not a matter of "in NeoLemmix, a faller can't exit but a splatter can"; it's a matter of "in NeoLemmix, a faller can, by design, exit".

So while I do encourage discussion - otherwise I'd've shut this topic down and said "it's staying, no more debate accepted" - it needs to be thought of in the context of a physics change / option, not the context of a bugfix.

The one thing that does seem clear is that no one wants it to be always-enabled. This would mean that if an option is not implemented to let a content designer choose, I'd take this as sufficient reason to go with the "disabled" rather than "enabled" as the one constant setting. However, beyond that, it does seem more people are in favor of the option than of completely removing it, even if these people are not as vocal about their reasoning.

[Simon]

You'd rather serve a poll's 5:4 majority than consider arguments why it's bad design to have this option?

There's a ton of psychology going into polls like this. People are generally afraid of change, and often believe the status quo is somehow good enough. The option will neatly do this, and can't harm anyone, right? It's perfectly obvious to some what to click without contemplation.

But the option brings serious harm -- hidden inconsistency that will eventually surface during play. This is horrible for beginners, and bad for experienced players, too. I don't believe all of its voters have understood this. Not a single one has explained how the option provides enough benefit to warrant the inconsistency.

-- Simon

[namida]

The benefit would be that for a long time it was the only option in NeoLemmix mechanics - the option to disable it was (reluctantly) added in, IIRC, V1.35n-B; and enabling it is still the default, the option is not even present in the quick pack properties editor in the Flexi Toolkit, but only in the more-detailed SYSTEM.DAT editor in the NeoLemmix Editor. There are levels out there that rely on this behaviour, some of which could not easily be adjusted to not rely on it - especially if the creator wishes to stay within the "traditional" options (those not so worried about this could often solve it via the use of updrafts). Therefore, the benefit is reducing the number of existing mechanics that are being changed. And as mentioned before - there is even an entire graphic set (the Sky set) that is designed around the assumption that such a mechanic exists; certianly not to the point it won't function otherwise, but to the point where the exit is clearly designed to be placed in mid-air rather than on terrain. And yes, multiple levels using this set rely on a direct drop. (One possible answer to this is to allow two different types of exit objects - one that allows direct drop, one that does not. This is arguably an even worse solution than having a pack-wide option.)

The option was, for the most part, added because one content creator was so adamant about not wanting it, that rather than allow it (or design their levels to prevent it), their preference was to modify the source to create a customized version of NeoLemmix that does not allow it. Given that someone was willing to go to such lengths - which would also potentially cause hassle during development of their pack, not to mention needing to re-modify the source code if they wished to update to a newer engine version - I relented and quietly snuck in the option to disable it, to save them the hassle (you might notice that the changelogs, to both the player and the editor, make no mention of this option being added). Had it not been for this, the question would not even be on the table.

I do agree that having an option is less favorable than having it fixed to one setting or the other. In this regard, yes - more people say "always disable" than "always enable", but the majority opinion of all is "make it creator's choice". Yes, this does introduce an inconsistency, but I would also think it clearly indicates that there are people who want to be able to use this mechanic in their levels.

Perhaps another angle we should look at - is there a good way to solve this problem, without forcing those who want to use this mechanic not to, and without introducing an inconsistency? The two-types-of-exit approach mentioned above is one such method, but as I mentioned, not a very good one. If an alternative way to handle this comes up, then that reduces the need to have it as an option. (One possibility, perhaps - since overlapping trigger areas should be much less problematic in NX2 than they currently are - is extending the "floaters and gliders can exit" to include "fallers passing through an updraft can exit" as well. However, this does come back to that it makes the approach much more obvious in levels that do use it, than a pack-global option or consistent allow-it behaviour would.)

I've put up yet another poll - removing the "pack creator's choice" option, and instead asking which people would prefer if it had to be one or the other consistent behaviours. If there's a strong opinion in favor of don't allow it, then perhaps we'll say goodbye to direct drop - feel free to give input on what should happen regarding levels that rely on it. If it's mixed, or in favor of keep it, then it looks like giving pack creators an option is the only way forward - with a clear indication in the pack's information as to what the pack's setting is, I have not at any point considered keeping it "secret" that a pack allows it or not.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is NOT saying that I'm no longer considering making it an option; this is just in the hopes that asking what people would prefer if it had to be one or the other, might give a better indication of whether or not the option should be there. (Perhaps I should've divided the "make it an option" choice into two choices, depending on what the person themself would prefer to use...)



On a note unrelated to direct drop, but related to the initial subject of this topic - I think it's pretty clear that we are no longer going to have a "timed bombers" option. However, the physics do still need to allow for a countdown, for the radiation and slowfreeze objects to work properly. With that in mind - since the skill is instant, but it would not be difficult to have a timer in this case - should the Nuke continue to have a 5 second countdown? (Since any nuking is generally going to result in the end of the level, except in surviving-bombers levels (and in that case, it makes little difference whether it's timed or not; since you could just wait 5 seconds longer before hitting it), this is more or less a purely cosmetic question.)

[mobius]

I guess I should have spoke earlier but it's too late now
I want there to be a choice.
I'm not voting in this poll. I already voted for the middle option, which you got rid of.
On my phone can't say much

[namida]

I realise that the most popular preference is to have an option. That's precisely the point of this new poll - to either show, or prove wrong, that there is a need for an option and simply going to "don't allow it" is not the preferred decision.

[Simon]

The correct path seems to be examining the exits, and see what can be done here. Are most of the levels relying on direct drop made with the sky set? A per-pack option would be unfitting then, because the sky set is chosen per level, not per pack.

Other sets have exits looking like an arc, or like a walkway, where you have to walk in conciously. Those who like direct drop, would you want fallers/floaters to enter this? (NL is designed explicitly such that they do.)

-- Simon

[mobius]

Sorry for the quick/weird post but these topics go away so fast I can't keep up.

While I, myself, don't really care whether the direct drop is used or not, if I had to choose; I would chose not, it does cause backroutes, and I personally don't prefer it, but having the option is nice for a few reasons.

Every levelpack that's made can be thought of as a new "game" made by that creator and can be unique to that creator. The more options the creator has the more unique and interesting it can be. The rules of the game shouldn't be decided by one person because they think it's better that way. I still think timed bombers should be an option to this benefit as well. I also don't like them very much; now that I got used to non-timed bombers, but they present a different type of challenge that some people like. The more diverse the game can be the more interesting.

Like Proxima pointed out; the games have moved in a direction that favors complex puzzle solving and almost gotten rid of any other aspects. That's nice for those that like that, but not for the people that liked the game for the other reasons.
I'm not saying I want to bring back annoying annoying mechanics, but having the option to diversify the type of game you create is a really cool and powerful tool. Someone may want to make a levelpack which is similar to Fun of OL, with very types of challenges or has an "old school" feel to it.

I don't think anyone's mentioned that in Revolution direct drop was a desired game mechanic; one level actually requires it to solve. However perhaps this is a better example of how it "works" in that case because the lemmings "jump" into the exit balloon. So "falling" into the balloon is a little different than "walking into an exit."
Still, I remember the first time I played and I was hoping or expected direct drop to work. I don't remember what level it was on but it was either OL or ONML when I was much younger. It was one of those things like, I was hoping you could walk on top of the entrance while playing Lemmings in the Attic.

[I did vote btw]

[Nepster]

This new poll seriously confuses me, so let me state my opinion here in words:
- If I would be the king of the world and only my point of view counts, then direct drops would be disabled completely.
- If there are some level designers who want to use direct drops not only for convenience but as an integral part of levels, then I would prefer keeping this option.

But the option brings serious harm -- hidden inconsistency that will eventually surface during play. This is horrible for beginners, and bad for experienced players, too. I don't believe all of its voters have understood this. Not a single one has explained how the option provides enough benefit to warrant the inconsistency.

While this is a valid argument, I don't think it's quite as bad (in the case of direct drops) as you want to make us believe. There are currently other quirks of NeoLemmix that are worse in this respect, e.g.
- the precise climber mechanics (I am currently undecided whether to start a new thread to discuss them or not)
- glider mechanics (when do they turn around compared to just drop a little in height?)
- disarmers not disarming traps that are currently triggered.
True, all of these points do not change from level pack to level pack, but understanding them in the first place is much more complicated than to check out direct drops.

And if we use your argument, then there should be no options to change the entrance order to ABBA or to change the max. fall distance. But both options are currently supported by the editor V1.35D, though we may of course decide to change that as well...

[Simon]

But the option brings serious harm -- hidden inconsistency that will eventually surface during play.

While this is a valid argument, I don't think it's quite as bad (in the case of direct drops) as you want to make us believe. There are currently other quirks of NeoLemmix that are worse in this respect

The other examples all have exactly one quirky way that can be learned by the player, and then future behavior can be anticipated.

I agree that the other examples can bring seemingly inconsistent behavior and are harder to understand.

And if we use your argument, then there should be no options to change the entrance order to ABBA or to change the max. fall distance. But both options are currently supported by the editor V1.35D, though we may of course decide to change that as well...

Correct, I'd suggest removing these options.

Max fall distance relies on careful judgement, you don't want to disturb that. Entrance order, you can make 4 instead of 2 hatches and get any entrance order you want.

-- Simon

[namida]

Fall distance is not directly editable in NeoLemmix levels. It only exists in the form of "Cheapo Mode", which is strongly advised against using in any new levels, and exists only for the purpose of converted Cheapo levels - it should be noted also that the fall distance change here cannot be decoupled from the other changes that Cheapo Mode applies. The "Fall Distance" option you see in the editor that allows directly choosing a value is for (Super)Lemmini levels, which do support arbitrary distances; this option is disabled when editing a (Neo)Lemmix level.

- the precise climber mechanics (I am currently undecided whether to start a new thread to discuss them or not)

It's definitely something that needs to be discussed; I myself was going to create a topic on this at a later date.

- glider mechanics (when do they turn around compared to just drop a little in height?)

IIRC, it's consistent with swimmers (or walkers in no-gravity levels).

Entrance order, you can make 4 instead of 2 hatches and get any entrance order you want.

Which is precisely why there is zero logic in not having that option. Because the exact same effect can be achieved simply by placing however many entrances is needed for the desired order. So, it makes sense to allow simply choosing a custom order out of X number of custom exits, rather than requiring some to be duplicated (which would be an especially huge headache if the level designer later decided to change the order).

[Nepster]

Fall distance is not directly editable in NeoLemmix levels. It only exists in the form of "Cheapo Mode", which is strongly advised against using in any new levels, and exists only for the purpose of converted Cheapo levels - it should be noted also that the fall distance change here cannot be decoupled from the other changes that Cheapo Mode applies. The "Fall Distance" option you see in the editor that allows directly choosing a value is for (Super)Lemmini levels, which do support arbitrary distances; this option is disabled when editing a (Neo)Lemmix level.

I am talking about the option "60Px Fall Distance" I see in the System.DAT Editor. As this is checked e.g. in the LPDOS preset, I thought one could change this for NeoLemmix levels as well?

- glider mechanics (when do they turn around compared to just drop a little in height?)

IIRC, it's consistent with swimmers (or walkers in no-gravity levels).

I never claimed it was inconsistent. But I cannot (in any of these cases) decide what will happen simply by only looking at the terrain. The glider is the worst in this respect, because it is not easy to determine the pixel it is positioned on.

Entrance order, you can make 4 instead of 2 hatches and get any entrance order you want.

Which is precisely why there is zero logic in not having that option. Because the exact same effect can be achieved simply by placing however many entrances is needed for the desired order. So, it makes sense to allow simply choosing a custom order out of X number of custom exits, rather than requiring some to be duplicated (which would be an especially huge headache if the level designer later decided to change the order).

Sorry, but due to this option I always place 4 hatches in a level instead of only 2 or 3 and I cannot confirm that changing the order is an especially huge headache.
I think Simon's argument goes as follows: The standard option will be used in most levels and only few make use of doubling up hatches to change this order. So it boils down to the question: What does the player expect and then get in a level where the entrance order does not matter?
And as you said: Having this option doesn't create more choices for level designer. So we might look to secondary arguments to decide whether to keep this option or not. And Simon has such an argument against it.