[SUGGESTION] [PLAYER] [ADDED / REJECTED] Assigning walkers / bombers to swimmers

[Nepster]

Status: Changed from "Bug" to "Suggestion" as current behaviour is intended.

Have decided against allowing Walkers to be used on Swimmers.

Have decided in favor of making swimmer-bombers apply destruction mask as normal, and implemented this for the next update.



Original Post

I am not sure whether the following two behaviors are intended or not. At least I did not expect them to be that way.

1) One cannot assign walkers to swimming swimmers. As walkers have an effect in pretty much any situation, this strikes me as weird.

2) A swimming swimmer explodes when given the bomber skill, but never removes any terrain. As one doesn't see this behavior in other situations, it was probably precisely coded that way. But I see no reason why?

[Simon]

1) Icho and I aren't sure.

In NL, you cannot walk-turn any of these: climber, floater, glider, detrapper disarmer. So: Not walk-turning swimmers would be consistent with all other performers of permanent abilities. Are turnable swimmers more intuitive? Icho isn't sure: Even though it breaks consistency with other permanents, turning as a swimmer in real-life is very much possible.

Assigning walker to a swimming swimmer turns the swimmer in L3, and costs a swimming tool. It's never used in L3 level design. I'd have expected the walker to act like in L3, but I'm biased from knowing L3 since childhood.

2) If it bombs, it should destroy terrain. Icho and I agree on this with you.

-- Simon

[namida]

Please note the 2nd rule in the Bug & Suggestions Subforums Rules.

Anyway:

1. This is definitely an interesting point. Climber obviously has no purpose being turnable with the walker skill. A floater or a disarmer, could be argued that they should turn once they finish what they're doing, but have no reason to turn while they're working. Gliding is the most similar to Swimming, though the key difference is that - in terms of real life logic - the lemming would not really have much control over where they move while gliding; they would while swimming (like they would with walking, where they will turn around if told to do so (via a Walker skill)).
Should this behaviour be changed? I think that's something that needs to remain open to discussion rather than making a decision right here and now. If it does - should it be changable by a Walker skill (which one would expect, if the lemming is not already walking, changes it to walking - with the result being one frame as a walker before the lemming goes straight back to a swimmer; meaning the turning around as a non-walker behaviour would be inconsistent - however, a counter-argument is that swimming is almost literally just walking, but on water and with a different animation - yes, the code even is almost identical for the two actions), or by a Swimmer skill (which would be very inconsistent in terms of mechanics, considering that Swimmer is generally a permanent skill; but might be more logical in terms of plain, everyday thought, if one already knows that a Walker skill causes an already-walker to turn). The latter is also likely to be more backroute prone. I do not like the idea of it costing both skills (which would be the case if one were to compare to L3, where you use a walker but also are charged one swimmer, if I'm understanding Simon correctly).


2. I believe my thought when implementing it this way was that the water would soften the blast, therefore it shouldn't destroy anything. A secondary consideration was that often, in a level design like the one shown in the image below, the level designer has not thought to extend the water behind the terrain, and thus unusual results would occur with a bomb near the edge. This could be argued is a matter for level design, not the game, to handle; and also that the player could give rise to this situation in other ways (such as digging near the edge). Personally, I almost always extend water behind terrain in my levels, but I do recall hearing that many level designers do not. However, in a level that presents swimmers alongside destructive skills, they may be more likely to do so. Another thing to consider is that stoners, IIRC, do act normally when used on a swimmer (except for having no "Oh No!" phase), and in all other cases, behaviour is consistent between Bombers and Stoners in every way that isn't an explicit difference between the two (namely, whether terrain is created or destroyed).

Level Image

Lemmings Plus IV, Insane 4 "Ooh, Shiny!"
Yes, I know this is a poor example as the level in question doesn't actually feature Swimmers, but the kind of setup I'm referring to in terms of terrain/water layout is present nonetheless.

[ccexplore]

I'm unfamiliar with walkers in general, and especially in NeoLemmix.  Does it always cause the lemming to turn, or only if the lemming is already walking?  (I'm under the impression that if the lemming was doing something else, the walker reverts it to walking but doesn't cause turning in that case?  Or is that a different game?)

I think I can rationalize either behavior in my mind, and the idea of being able to turn swimmers do sound intriguing at least at a gut level.  That said, if we do decide to allow walkers to turn swimmers, we should also examine other skills as well and see which other ones are also worth making "turnable" by walkers.

==========================

I can accept the provided explanation of "water softening the blast" in principle, though I feel most people (me included) would probably expect the explosion to remove terrain, and if not told the explanation, would probably not have come up with it on their own to rationalize, instead more likely seeing behavior as bug/quirk/unexpected.  "no water behind the exploded terrain" concern seems far better handled with level design.  Exploding swimmers being able to take out terrain also seems more interesting for puzzle design possibilities.

If you do decide to stick with "water softening the blast", it'd be good to have a different animation or visual to help suggest the explosion is somehow different on water.

[IchoTolot]

1.) Personally I would give my vote to the no-walker side, because of consistency.
      If the consistence would be flipped over, walker+glider would create backroute hell in a lot of level.
      I recommend everything staying as it is.

2.) As mentioned above: If it explodes, it should create a hole, no matter the water! As this swimmer behavior is atm the only inconsistency in the whole scheme. The "water softening the blast" sounds kinda unintentional and would create unnessesary extra-cases players have to learn.

[Nepster]

1) I have no strong preference either way, but to me swimmers are a lot closer to walking lemmings than e.g. to climbers or gliders.

If the consistence would be flipped over, walker+glider would create backroute hell in a lot of level.

Could you please give some examples? Thanks in advance.

@ccexplore: For any non-permanent skill, assigning a walker just cancels the skill.

2)

...the level designer has not thought to extend the water behind the terrain, and thus unusual results would occur with a bomb near the edge.

If a level is created badly, one has the same problem right now if you bomb just one frame before the lemming hits the water. So adding bomber holes for swimmers does not create any new problems here.

[namida]

1) I have no strong preference either way, but to me swimmers are a lot closer to walking lemmings than e.g. to climbers or gliders.

If the consistence would be flipped over, walker+glider would create backroute hell in a lot of level.

Could you please give some examples? Thanks in advance.

In general, being able to turn gliders around would lead firstly to a lot of problems, and secondly to potentially very annoying levels ("Can you find the exact right spots to turn the glider around?!").

In regards to swimmers being closer to walkers than other permanent skills - this is very true in terms of their coding, too. It's basically just the walker code, but checking for water instead of terrain (and a few other minor changes, of course).

2)

...the level designer has not thought to extend the water behind the terrain, and thus unusual results would occur with a bomb near the edge.

If a level is created badly, one has the same problem right now if you bomb just one frame before the lemming hits the water. So adding bomber holes for swimmers does not create any new problems here.

This is a very valid point. Alright, I think this one should be changed.

[IchoTolot]

If the consistence would be flipped over, walker+glider would create backroute hell in a lot of level.

Could you please give some examples? Thanks in advance.

There I must go through all level which have glider+floater, but even now glider are a VERY powerful skill with which you have to be careful with (big point here: variable gliding length due to variable assignment point) and their biggest weakness is once they are going, they cannot change direction.
If a walker could be assigned to them a glider could reach nearly double the area than before which should lead to a ton of possible backroutes.

2 of my non-released levels + "Apocalypse Maintenant" for example are getting into my head right now and would need further tests.

But as I said: Permanent skills are currently consistent in terms of walkers and I think this is a good thing.

[Nepster]

Ah, thanks. I now see the problem with walker+glider.

[namida]

Okay, I've decided:
> NO to walkers being able to turn swimmers around.
> YES to swimmer-bombers destroying terrain as normal.

The latter is implemented for the next update.