[SUGG.][MECHANIC]Object or skill that removes permanant skills

[mobius]

Object or skill that removes some or all permanent skills from that lemming encountering it. So a climber may no longer necessarily be a climber for the entire level.

Thought of this one at work one day. An idea that I'd like feedback on; yay or nay?

Edit by namida: The idea of a skill that does this has been rejected; but the possibility of an object that does this is still open.

[namida]

This is the kind of idea that will need a lot of support before I'll implement it, but I'm open to the idea. Feel free to continue discussing, and see how much support there is for it.

[Minim]

Interesting idea. So something like the Thief object from Chip's Challenge? Let's see how this idea works in lemmings.

Suggestions like these needs two arguments; one for and one against. Here's my opinion.

So, first of all, let's take a look at the permanent skills and see if we can use them in concept.

* Climber
* Floater
* Glider
* Swimmer
* Disarmer

Let's start with the climber. Let's says that it's allowed to climb the first wall but not the second. This can easily be worked around by adding some terrain to the second wall. So Nay.

As for Floaters. Using a similar concept, this object might be OK to implement under certain circumstances. Let's say there's a trap (A fire trap) on the second landing platform where the worker needs to get down to. If there are free builders/platformers, the player can work around that problem to fall safely from any height. You could simply add steel on the other side of the second ledge to block that route, rather than rely on that object. So Nay.

Gliders may work best for this situation. Let's say you've created a near-symmetrical level with grid on both sides, a platform on the bottom and two platforms on the top beside the grid, and an exit on the bottom platform in the middle. If the lemmings are automatically assigned gliders, then they can't possibly reach the exit if they keep gliding away from it. The player must think of a way to get to the object that will take their gliders so that they are able to reach the exit.

As for swimmers: If you want a lemming to swim one pool but not the next, you could simply add a triggered trap or terrain to prevent this. If you want to prevent the swimmer from swimming back (E.g. in a One-way wall type level) then you could just add two pools with a bit of terrain in between; The second pool lower than the first. So Nay.

Finally the disarmer (the least popular skill for level designers). I don't see a point having to clear two triggered traps with the user having to think of something else to clear the second. If this is the Marble Graphic set, you could easily add the rotating fire trap in place of the second triggered trap. So Nay.

So overall, I'm against this idea. I hope I explained all of this clearly. Feel free to ask me any questions.

[namida]

While I don't think that covers every possible use case, Minim does raise some good points. What needs to be focused on is - how are you going to use this in levels? (And for this purpose, is it better to have some kind of skill that removes permanent skill assignments, or an object that does it?)

If it's introduced as an object, do we want a constant thing (eg. a field that, upon entering, a lemming loses its permanent skills) or a triggered object (ie: similar to traps or teleporters, it only can affect one lemming at a time)?

If we get some consensus on these at least, I'll make a note to put this in a test version (for trialling purposes; ie: without any guarantee that it'll become a permanent feature) at the same time as the Fencer skill, when I finally get around to that.

[ccexplore]

I think Minim's examples may be too simple for the proposed mechanic, which is why it would be unnecessary for those cases.  Blocking a route is not that hard and you usually have a myriad of options to do so.  The proposed mechanic however does not just block a single route, but permanently remove the ability from the affected lemming so that all other routes in the level requiring that ability would also be blocked for that lemming as well.  I don't feel like thinking right now, but I suspect there might be more complex setups that can better illustrate and sell the proposed mechanic.  (Alternatively, feel free to generalize some of Minim's points and see if you can find a way to always transform any level using the proposed mechanic into an equivalent that does not use it.)

I do think that anyone proposing a new mechanic should also try to come with up a level idea illustrating how it could be used and why it couldn't be done well with existing mechanics.  I realize it's a bit of chicken-and-egg since it may be hard to do so without being able to experiment and playtest it in the game, but right now the effort to implement most new mechanics (and later to debug and fix any unanticipated interactions between new mechanics and existing ones) is a little on the high side, so it's only fair to be given at least one good example to sell it first.

[namida]

For the purpose of testing a new idea, the implementation does not have to be perfect or glitch-free, it just has to work.

So for that reason - a rough, shitty implementation can be used to trial it, and if it shows promise, a proper implementation can then be made. That's what I'm planning to do for Fencer skill.

[mobius]

mention of the "theif" gave me a new idea but this may be a bit too complex; a zombie like object but instead this theif-lemming steals all permanent skills instead of infecting the lemming.

Keep in mind this mechanic could be for good and bad; sometimes you want a lemming to keep the skill, sometimes you wish they could get removed. [so as to avoid climbing a wall or gliding to death]

I think I'm more in favor of this being some type of object rather than a skill but I guess I'd really have to try it out to tell. I'd prefer a field instead of single trigger (I kind of wish teleporters would work that way )

For the purpose of testing a new idea, the implementation does not have to be perfect or glitch-free, it just has to work.

So for that reason - a rough, shitty implementation can be used to trial it, and if it shows promise, a proper implementation can then be made. That's what I'm planning to do for Fencer skill.

whoa, whoa, when did this fencer skill come about? where was this discussion?

[Proxima]

Let's start with the climber. Let's says that it's allowed to climb the first wall but not the second. This can easily be worked around by adding some terrain to the second wall. So Nay.

Actually, climbers would work well with this object, because being a climber is not always an advantage. You could have a ledge overhanging the exit, so that when the lems fall down next to the exit, they are going the wrong way, and if they are climbers, they climb up the opposite wall to their doom (or maybe an endless loop). Then you have to do one of three things: turn the climbers around somehow, avoid using climbers at all, or get all the climbers to the thief object. Since any of these approaches might work, you have the potential for a good puzzle with a plausible red herring and a hidden actual solution.

Alternatively, with any permanent skill, the thief object could be a hazard to be avoided. It wouldn't necessarily be equivalent to a trap, because it leaves the lems alive, and there may be other ways to save them. For example, you have a hatch that spawns floaters, but they all walk into a thief object, and it takes time to build over it, so you end up with a mix of floaters and non-floaters, and now you have to sort them out so the floaters can go on ahead and build a landing bridge for the non-floaters.

[namida]

Interest in this idea has spiked a bit recently, so reviving this topic.

[Minim]

Let's start with the climber. Let's says that it's allowed to climb the first wall but not the second. This can easily be worked around by adding some terrain to the second wall. So Nay.

Actually, climbers would work well with this object, because being a climber is not always an advantage. You could have a ledge overhanging the exit, so that when the lems fall down next to the exit, they are going the wrong way, and if they are climbers, they climb up the opposite wall to their doom (or maybe an endless loop). Then you have to do one of three things: turn the climbers around somehow, avoid using climbers at all, or get all the climbers to the thief object. Since any of these approaches might work, you have the potential for a good puzzle with a plausible red herring and a hidden actual solution.

I can't seem to picture it (Although I'm generally not good at picturing someone else's ideas anyway). Do you (or anybody else) have an illustrative example? Pretend that the switch object is a thief object.

[WillLem]

I'm very much in favour of this idea, for three main reasons:

1. It could also be a zombie-canceller*, and thus could be seen as more of a "Lemming re-setter" than a skill-canceller; it could even make neutral lemmings into regular lemmings* as well. If these possibilities are opened up, all of a sudden it becomes an even more interesting idea.

2. It could be seen as both a benefit and an obstacle to be avoided, depending on the layout of the level and/or the skills involved. And this is key: since the layout of the level determines the status of the object (and not the other way around), it's particularly interesting at the level design stage.

3. There has never yet been any option to remove permanent skills. I think just this reason alone makes it worth a try, at least.

*or, these could be separate objects in their own right

[Dullstar]

I'm in favor of the idea to make an object out of this, but against the idea to make it a skill. I think the skill variant of the idea would be too fiddly to be fun to work with.

Would the object be limited to removing all permanent skills, or could it remove only specific permanent skills (perhaps communicated with similar notation to entrances that start lemmings with permanent skills)?

[namida]

I'm in favor of the idea to make an object out of this, but against the idea to make it a skill. I think the skill variant of the idea would be too fiddly to be fun to work with.

Would the object be limited to removing all permanent skills, or could it remove only specific permanent skills (perhaps communicated with similar notation to entrances that start lemmings with permanent skills)?

I should have made it clear here (and now have done so by editing the original post) that a skill has been ruled out - it's purely an object that's under consideration. (The ruling out of it as a skill happened in the "final new skill" topic.)

Beyond "it removes permanent skills", nothing is really decided yet. It's a vague concept at this stage.

[Proxima]

I can't seem to picture it (Although I'm generally not good at picturing someone else's ideas anyway). Do you (or anybody else) have an illustrative example? Pretend that the switch object is a thief object.

Picture the terrain layout around the exit on Konbanwa Lemming-san:



Suppose the lemmings are coming over the top platform, after disabling the trap. They have to turn around to exit, which non-climbers can naturally do as there is a wall. Climbers, however, will climb up and die when they reach the ceiling. Thus, in this situation it is a disadvantage for a lemming to be a climber.

[Strato Incendus]

Likewise, Minim's example for the Floater only considered the case of wanting a vertical vs. a diagonal trajectory to have a lemming go or not go into a trap / fire object.

However, at its core, the Floater / Glider simply preventing a splat is usually an advantage.

While I agree that for Disarmer levels, if you want him to disable just one of two triggered traps (i.e. force the player to find a different solution for the second trap), it seems like overkill since you can simply use a permanent trap - splat-height drops are much more common.

You might find yourself wanting Floaters to solve one splat-height drop, but not all the others in the level. After all, that's one of the main reasons why the Slider is also being discussed as a potential non-permanent skill, because people generally like the idea of a non-permanent Floater.

The Swimmer even has a non-permanent skill equivalent already in L2, the Kayaker. Of course, the post by Minim I'm referring to was written before the introduction of the Shimmier. Now however, you might find yourself in a situation where you have several water ponds - one to be covered by a Swimmer, one by a Shimmier, one by a Glider, one by a Platformer etc.

For both situations, in order to enforce them, you would have to place the skill-remover object in such a way that there's no way to bypass it. For example, by surrounding it with steel / fire / one-way arrows etc. If all lemmings or at least the worker lemming(s) MUST go through it, you can put the player at a disadvantage fairly (because the object is clearly visible from the start, hence the player can plan the route with it in mind).

And I think these situations whete permanent-skill removal causes a disadvantage for the player would result in even more interesting and challenging puzzles than situations where the object helps out the player.

In short: Yes, I very much support the introduction of such an object!

Probably more like a fire trap, i.e. non-triggered. It would be weird to have a bunch of pre-assigned Climbers walking through such an object, with some of them losing their skill and some keeping it...