[GENERAL] [DISCUSSION] Culling some options for objects

[namida]

Can anyone think of any reason why this flag should be kept? These days, NeoLemmix automatically applies only-draw-on-terrain to one-way arrows; outside of that, the only use cases I can think of for it are invisible objects (which is better served by the actual "invisible" option, which doesn't draw the object at all rather than taking the time to attempt to draw it, and finding every pixel doesn't need to be drawn), or in very rare cases for graphical effect, the only case I can think of being Fun 20 / Mayhem 7 of Orig (those who've only played the DOS version won't know what I'm referring to here - try the Amiga version (which the NeoLemmix version is also based off) and you'll see what I'm meaning).

It's possible I've overlooked something, so feel free to point this out if I have. But otherwise, I'm thinking it's time to drop that option.



EDIT

Also we may as well call two other options into question here - "Invisible" and "Fake". These do have a bit more use - yes, it is possible to use them in ways that would be "bad level design", but the way I see it, that does not in and of itself justify removing a feature. At any rate, these could be worked around by simply creating new objects that have no effect (or an effect but no graphic). This means that removal of them merely makes acheiving the effect less convenient. However, it would still be somewhat of a deterrent to bad level design - especially for the type of people who think "hey, there's an option, I MUST find a way to use this no matter how bad the resulting level is!".

One case I can think of where a single level uses both fake and invisible objects to interesting effect is "It's Opposite Day!" from Lemmings Plus IV. This level contains a fake window on the left side and a fake exit on the right side. There is then an invisible window where the visible-but-fake exit is placed, and an invisible exit (actually, several of them, to give a larger trigger area) where the visible-but-fake window is placed, giving the level its theme of opposites - as from the user's point of view, the lemmings spawn from the exit, and must reach the entrance.

EDIT: The decision has been made to not remove any of these options.

[IchoTolot]

I am using this flag sometimes for decorative objects. You can make so many awesome looking things with this.
Putting animatied objects on preparated terrain pieces, so that new effects are created with it.

For example: The ceiling decoration in Pagoda St. from Pieuw.

[namida]

Fair enough. If there's valid use for it, I can consider keeping it - we'll wait and see what other people say too, though.

The next question then would be - should it be usable for all object types, or only purely-decorative ones? If the former, should objects using it be always treated as fake? It makes little sense, at least to me, to (except for one-way arrows, of course) use such a feature on an object that is intended to do something.

[IchoTolot]

Well, it depends on the object animation. 
The fire-hydrant is well suited for this and it has an effect, so I would vote for usable for all objects.
But these can be treated all as fake though, as you use it for the animation and not for the effect.

[Nepster]

But otherwise, I'm thinking it's time to drop that option.

Excellent idea!

There are a a few cases where this setting might be useful, as IchoTolot already mentioned. However having an option is overkill. I suggest creating an object type called Decoration on terrain for all object pieces that do not interact with lemmings at all, except for exit tops: It is an object that (like one-way-walls) automatically and always applies the "Only On Terrain" flag.
This has two advantages:
- Level designers cannot trick players with non-solid objects that appear to be solid.
- Level designers still can decorate existing terrain and the decoration still gets removed when lemmings bash, mine or dig through it.

The fire-hydrant is well suited for this and it has an effect, so I would vote for usable for all objects.

I cannot think of any application of "Only on Terrain" for traps, exits, ... that is good level design. So how would you use the fire-hydrant together with "Only on Terrain"?

On a related note: Please consider culling the option Invisible Objects as well, as disussed in the thread Remove useless options from Inspector window.

[namida]

I cannot think of any application of "Only on Terrain" for traps, exits, ... that is good level design. So how would you use the fire-hydrant together with "Only on Terrain"?

I think he means using it as a fake object, so that its animation would give an interesting effect to the terrain? I'm not entirely sure though as I'm not familiar with the object in question.

On a related note: Please consider culling the option Invisible Objects as well, as disussed in the thread Remove useless options from Inspector window.

This matter is related enough that it can fit in this topic too. I edited the original post to reflect this, and also brought up the Fake setting at the same time.

[Simon]

Every gadget should do one thing, all the time. Exits should not be used as deco, or to mark invisible entrances.

There is already a decorative gadget type, the no-effect object.

The hydrants, trees, trashcans in the Shadow tileset, they're absurdly confusing. I always forget what is earth and what is deco, and ask Icho every time. There is no single rule by which I can guess what's solid. I want such a rule.

-- Simon

[Nepster]

I would keep the option Fake for now, because fake pickup skills are used to mark hatches with preassigned skills. But after finding a proper way to annotate hatches, I see no more uses for Fake objects.

At any rate, these [missing Invisibilty] could be worked around by simply creating new objects that have no effect (or an effect but no graphic).

Having two objects looking the same, but having different effects is very confusing for players. If one wants a new object with some effect, the picture should differ sufficiently so that players can easily distinguish them.

One case I can think of where a single level uses both fake and invisible objects to interesting effect is "It's Opposite Day!" from Lemmings Plus IV.

Sorry, but I did not find that an "interesting effect". When I played the level, I thought this was some new weird gimmick.
If anyone wants to play this level, it's Smooth 10.

[namida]

Simon's points here seem to come down to what many discussions do (in particular, the terrain on steel one comes to mind) - whether the priority should be 100% clear indication of what any given piece is/does (impossible in practice - as mentioned by ccexplore; looking at a lone pixel, you cannot tell if it's part of an object or part of terrain, no matter what that object does - but while 100% is impossible, getting somewhat close to it is not), or whether allowing some deviation from this for aesthetic / thematic purposes is acceptable.

I feel that this could somewhat be solved with either (a) an option to hide all no effect / fake objects and render all invisible objects visible. This would interfere with the aesthetics of any levels using these features, but it would not affect the levels functionally. I can think of one case where it actually means the level is less "fair" than without enabling that option, but such a case is very much the exception rather than the rule. Or (b), some option - perhaps via a hotkey, with the effect only lasting while the key is held - that temporarily replaces the proper rendering of the level with something akin to the "debug steel" mode, that foregoes all graphical detail in favor of a simple scheme of "color a = solid terrain; color b = steel terrain; color c = exit trigger", etc.

Having two objects looking the same, but having different effects is very confusing for players. If one wants a new object with some effect, the picture should differ sufficiently so that players can easily distinguish them.

Yes - but there's no realistic way the engine can really enforce this one. If someone wants to have fake or invisible objects, then even if the options are removed, creating new objects of those kinds is a way they could still do so. That's the point I was trying to make there.

[Simon]

Simon's points here
looking at a lone pixel
while 100% is impossible, getting somewhat close to it is not

I'm not concerned with individual pixels here. I'm concerned with entire tiles.

The editor invites faking through a cornucopia of baroque options per tile. That's bad. The editor should invite proper design. Doing the right thing should be easy. Let authors invest some criminal energy to re-create entire fake tiles from individual pixels.

(b), some option

Fewer options! Not more!

Options point to an underlying design question instead.

-- Simon

[IchoTolot]

Fewer options! Not more!

Options point to an underlying design question instead.

And then you have such bare options that so many things are impossible to do. (the same case as with the RR + timers )

Rotate, flip, invert  ensures that the pice is exactly the way you want it.

Not overwrite, only on terrain  ensures that the right parts of the piece is visible so that it looks good

Of course there lies criminal energy in abusing the settings, but this lies everywhere!

People must learn that hidden traps are bad and they must learn that misleading things are bad either. (and for the majority they have learned it!)

I cannot think of any application of "Only on Terrain" for traps, exits, ... that is good level design. So how would you use the fire-hydrant together with "Only on Terrain"?

Imagination Nepster!
You only use the spinning arms here. The decorational elements are placed where the player cannot reach them anyways. Again "Pagoda St." is the prime example here (fire hydrants and exit tops).

Of course the decoratinal elements must be seen as decoratinal on the first sight and I think that in this example nobody is fooled.


The "invisible" option on the other hand I agree on culling as the only purpose of this is criminal energy.

"Only on terrain" you can put to good use and should be kept. Again criminal energy lies everywhere and at some point the people themselves must learn what is bad design. You cannot thread them all like little childeren and removing all the toys that could be dangerous. At some point they have to learn that the knive is useful and dangerous

[ccexplore]

Simon's points here seem to come down to what many discussions do (in particular, the terrain on steel one comes to mind) - whether the priority should be 100% clear indication of what any given piece is/does (impossible in practice - as mentioned by ccexplore; looking at a lone pixel, you cannot tell if it's part of an object or part of terrain, no matter what that object does - but while 100% is impossible, getting somewhat close to it is not), or whether allowing some deviation from this for aesthetic / thematic purposes is acceptable.

It's a fair point to bring up, but in the context of this discussion, a closer analogy would be if the level author is allowed individually set the same piece of steel graphics as steel or earth, so that it's not consistent from piece to piece.  To be fair, that's still theoretically possible today if they create their own style that purposely subverts expectations.

This is why I will continue to argue for a truth-mode display.  It is basically the same as if you made the user examine the level in the editor, but a more convenient form to access from in-game.  It is of course a good core design goal to avoid needing to use it as much as possible, but I don't believe that should be the sole means for it.

[mobius]

Sometimes I use only-on-terrain for arrows to get a square shaped formation of arrows  but I don't know if it's necessary.

"Bad level design" -- this is a subjective thing and should not be talked about as if it isn't [as it almost ALWAYS is on this forum*] The game should not have limitations to prevent some type of level design just because some people don't like it.

Well, it depends on the object animation. 
The fire-hydrant is well suited for this and it has an effect, so I would vote for usable for all objects.
But these can be treated all as fake though, as you use it for the animation and not for the effect.

one of the best examples.  Having the thing marked as fake would be better than only on terrain then it wouldn't actually be a trap.

Every gadget should do one thing, all the time. Exits should not be used as deco, or to mark invisible entrances.
There is already a decorative gadget type, the no-effect object.

I point to great uses of the torches on exists being used as decoration in Dodo and Pieuw's levels. In this case it's pretty obvious there's no real exit here and it's just a decoration. See below.

The hydrants, trees, trashcans in the Shadow tileset, they're absurdly confusing. I always forget what is earth and what is deco, and ask Icho every time. There is no single rule by which I can guess what's solid. I want such a rule.

As to the Shadow set; this may only be a matter of being unfamiliar with the graphic set because it's so rarely used. If it were used all the time this probably wouldn't be a problem. A person's first time playing the original game usually takes then a little while to figure out what's a trap and what's not.

Personally I don't mind a little bit of decoration of this style; but a lot of it I don't like. The shadow set I can see the view that this set goes overboard on the decoration.
This is why I personally don't like the no-effect objects. Most of them I find only add clutter and inconsistency. While an object I'm already familiar with [like the torches on the exit] I already know what they do [nothing] and can recognize them.



*I'm frankly getting tired of hearing this bandied about by many people now.  There is the general consensus of what is popular and what is not. That's all there is to it. I don't like the idea of spreading suggestions to encourage level design and game design to more closely fit one's own personal view.

[Simon]

With Icho, I've clarified IRL how I'm concerned with fake and invisible.

This is why I personally don't like the no-effect objects. Most of them I find only add clutter and inconsistency.

Yes! This is a recent trend in Lix planning, too. Animated should mean (non-solid and some effect on collision) instead of only (non-solid).

Non-animated no-effect gadgets should be avoided.

[fire hydrant] one of the best examples. Having the thing marked as fake would be better than only on terrain then it wouldn't actually be a trap.

The fake-gadget flag isn't needed at all. Indeed, since we recognize that Pieuw mocks a lamp by putting a trap here, the trap should remain deadly.

As to the Shadow set; this may only be a matter of being unfamiliar with the graphic set because it's so rarely used. If it were used all the time this probably wouldn't be a problem.

I've played L2 since childhood. The shadow set confuses me still.

I've played Icho's shadow levels on several occasions at his place. The shadow set confuses me still.

Would you recommend even more exposure than this over fixing inconsistencies in the set?

A person's first time playing the original game usually takes then a little while to figure out what's a trap and what's not.

Yes, because of a separate design error in Lemmings.

Triggered traps should animate while idle. They're non-solid, and dangerous. They must look as different from terrain as possible. Showing only one idling frame is a huge mistake by all Lemmings games.

There is the general consensus of what is popular and what is not. That's all there is to it. I don't like the idea of spreading suggestions to encourage level design and game design to more closely fit one's own personal view.

You're welcome to ignore the underlying principles of human cognition.

-- Simon

[ccexplore]

The hydrants, trees, trashcans in the Shadow tileset, they're absurdly confusing. I always forget what is earth and what is deco, and ask Icho every time. There is no single rule by which I can guess what's solid. I want such a rule.

As to the Shadow set; this may only be a matter of being unfamiliar with the graphic set because it's so rarely used. If it were used all the time this probably wouldn't be a problem. A person's first time playing the original game usually takes then a little while to figure out what's a trap and what's not.

This is Lemmings 2's shadow set right?  Bringing that up is actually totally out of topic IMO; the confusion around decorations and terrain in that set very much exists even though there are no special options whatsoever like only-draw-on-terrain in Lemmings 2 (indeed, you can't even overlap anything in that game).  I wouldn't bother to say anything about it except that I do also think that set's decorations can be more confusing than other sets in L2, primarily because 1) they don't really stand out against normal terrain, and 2) the decorations are often placed in locations that are part of the main path in a solution, so it's not like some neat ceiling decoration that you can just ignore for level solving purposes.  But again, design issues with the set, nothing to do with draw-on-terrain-only or other special rendering options in NeoLemmix.

===========

It sounds like this is currently down to allowing an object to be displayed either way (use the option or don't use the option), versus having two distinct classes of objects, one of which always use draw-on-terrain-only and the other never.  For the second proposal, the implicit assumption appears to be that most objects are best used just one of the two ways, so for the few that works well for both ways, we can just make duplicates of them in the set.

Either way, it sounds like some form of draw-on-terrain-only is to stay.