[Rejected]Cull turning lemmings around in teleporters? [EXP-PLAYER] [DISCUSSION]

[Dullstar]

Bottom line is: Don't go on a culling frenzy. Removing more and more things from the new version, no matter how unnecessary or corner-case you might believe them to be, will not attract more players to the new formats version. Why would you "upgrade" to something that can do less than what you had before?

I must agree here. The culling is starting to get a little frustrating from a content-maintenance perspective. Why use any features that weren't present in the original games if you can't be confident they won't be culled in the future? In any case where user-generated content is the main appeal of something, maintaining backwards compatibility should be of the utmost importance, and culls fly in the face of this goal. I strongly oppose all further culls.

Incidentally, I tend to use clear physics mode pretty much any time the objects present in a level are more complicated than a hatch and an exit (I like to be able to see all the trigger areas), so I honestly don't have too many concerns about needing to use it to glean this sort of information about various objects.

[Strato Incendus]

I must agree here. The culling is starting to get a little frustrating from a content-maintenance perspective.

That's an additional thing, of course. I have two packs worth of levels, 250 in total, and neither of them will be New Formats-compatible. If I update Paralems and/or Pit Lems for New Formats, I will not replace the radiation / slowfreeze-based levels with different ones. As long as the new formats player merely does less than version 10.13, it will simply have these levels removed without substitute. Because the old versions of the packs are the originals, and I won't give players of the new version anything players of the old pack don't get.

Once the shimmier and jumper are implemented, that would be reason enough for me to create a new pack for the new formats version, and then just throw in the best puzzles from Paralems and Pit Lems, like Flopsy did with the MegSEBytes rank in SEB Lems.

Why use any features that weren't present in the original games if you can't be confident they won't be culled in the future?

Yep, that's exactly the point . I spoke about this in the past as "demotivating new level creators".

Though I usually frame it the other way around: If people like the restrictions of original lemmings so much (with regard to skills and objects, not to execution), why not simply play Lemmix / SuperLemmini? In a lot of levels which are created even today, I still see a massive "bias" towards the classic 8 skills, especially with "X of everything"-levels.

[Nepster]

Bottom line is: Don't go on a culling frenzy. Removing more and more things from the new version, no matter how unnecessary or corner-case you might believe them to be, will not attract more players to the new formats version. Why would you "upgrade" to something that can do less than what you had before?

Totally, absolutely, completely! If I could I would go back to an earlier version of Windows or the Adobe Acrobat Reader (for pdfs). I still use the XP version of Paint, have replaced the Windows Media Player with a different music/video player and this featuritis is exactly the reason why I still don't have a smartphone.
Why? Because all these unnecessary features make it harder to use these new versions!

I must agree here. The culling is starting to get a little frustrating from a content-maintenance perspective. Why use any features that weren't present in the original games if you can't be confident they won't be culled in the future?

As I said previously: The culling stops once the new-formats become stable.

In any case where user-generated content is the main appeal of something, maintaining backwards compatibility should be of the utmost importance, and culls fly in the face of this goal. I strongly oppose all further culls.

Version 10.13.18 remains available, so old levels can still be played, similarly to V1.43 and gimmick levels.
On the other hand: How often did you use the turn-around teleporters (note that teleporters in general will still be available)? I can understand that namida and IchoTolot, who use them in levels are opposed to removing this feature, but I don't get why people who never used these features and probably won't use them in the near future, still feel so strongly about keeping them?

[Strato Incendus]

Version 10.13.18 remains available, so old levels can still be played, similarly to V1.43 and gimmick levels.

Which is why I'm currently going back to 1.43, even if that means dealing with all the shortcomings of the old player again - for both players and level creators.

I can understand that namida and IchoTolot, who use them in levels are opposed to removing this feature, but I don't get why people who never used these features and probably won't use them in the near future, still feel so strongly about keeping them?

Because we don't understand what benefit lies in removing mere options when the existence of these options doesn't cause harm. Your main argument for everything you've removed so far is "it's barely being used", so the casualties you create are always low, but they still are there. And every level creator has to hope his particular levels aren't affected, or has to go ahead and create new ones.

If you go back to old versions of softwares for your personal needs, you must also expect other people going back to either 1.43 or 10.13.18. That seems to collide with your aspiration of making the new formats version the new "standard" here on the forum .

[Nepster]

Because we don't understand what benefit lies in removing mere options when the existence of these options doesn't cause harm. Your main argument for everything you've removed so far is "it's barely being used", so the casualties you create are always low, but they still are there. And every level creator has to hope his particular levels aren't affected, or has to go ahead and create new ones.

No, my main argument for culling is not that it is barely used. Instead it is (copied from the first post):

I always found this extremely confusing, both as a level designer and as a player. Actually I only understood this behavior after creating several test levels featuring the various combinations. And as a player I still always expect the lemmings to keep their direction and am rather surpised if I encounter one of the rare levels that uses teleporters turning the lemmings.

[IchoTolot]

I still think that with a clear physics addition of the writing "turn" and with my proposed simpler rules to set this up in the editor, this confusing part is a complete non-factor. Even now I don't think it is confusing.

Also, just because it caused a tiny bit of confusion on your side at first, culling the entire feature seems like ridiculous overkill. Rather improve then cull! This should always be option 1!

[kieranmillar]

I see teleporters of only doing one thing, moving the location of the lemming. By turning them as well, you're also changing the lemming's state.

[IchoTolot]

I see teleporters of only doing one thing, moving the location of the lemming. By turning them as well, you're also changing the lemming's state.

Why should this be a problem if you see what's up right after the first teleport or when it is written in clear physics mode?

[Dullstar]

On the other hand: How often did you use the turn-around teleporters (note that teleporters in general will still be available)? I can understand that namida and IchoTolot, who use them in levels are opposed to removing this feature, but I don't get why people who never used these features and probably won't use them in the near future, still feel so strongly about keeping them?

Admittedly, at this point it's more of a general discomfort with the culls - it may be a feature that I don't use currently on the chopping block (I'm pretty sure the only level I've ever made with a teleporter was only there to show off the sprite, and I generally only do individual levels rather than full packs now, so I really don't have much content out there), but seeing large numbers of features being culled starts to build concern that maybe the next proposed cull will be something I do indeed make use of.

[Strato Incendus]

but seeing large numbers of features being culled starts to build concern that maybe the next proposed cull will be something I do indeed make use of.

Indeed. Fear tends to generalise . But I'm glad we can agree that culling seems to have become a "trend", and now there's the question how many want to move along with it.

No, my main argument for culling is not that it is barely used. Instead it is (copied from the first post):

Okay, thanks for clarifying this. I didn't mean to misrepresent you, I am referring to your overarching arguments for culling features of any sort. For radiation, slowfreeze, anti-splat pads, and now for reversed teleporters and receivers, the argument "it's not even used that often" has, as far as I remember, always been a part of your argumentative line, as a "redeeming factor" that removing it won't cause lots of damage. Will it might not do any damage to your content, it certainly does to that created by a few other select individuals.

I have understood that for teleporters and receivers specifically, confusion of direction is the main reason you suggested the cull - but I believe this fear should have been reasonably dispelled by now: namida said it's just a single line in the code, IchoTolot has suggested the simple "turn" label, and clear physics mode is something a player has access to all the time. Many tilesets even force you to use it, because their traps are designed to look harmless by nature (like the rock trap in dirt, the ice spike in snow, the grappling hand in purple etc.). So using clear physics should be encouraged in general when taking a first look at a level, in my opinion.


@IchoTolot: In order not to quote your entire post, I hereby put my virtual signature beneath it, because I agree with everything you said on this matter!

[Ryemanni]

I didn't even know that teleporters could change the Lemming's direction. I find it very confusing and don't like the idea.

[Nepster]

Why should this be a problem if you see what's up right after the first teleport or when it is written in clear physics mode? Culling entire features just because of little things that would need slight improvements is a trend that has to stop.

In my point of view I am doing exactly that: Instead of culling teleporters completely, I am fixing the problem and slightly improving them by removing the side-effect of lemmings turning around.

[...] I am referring to your overarching arguments for culling features of any sort. For radiation, slowfreeze, anti-splat pads, and now for reversed teleporters and receivers, the argument "it's not even used that often" has, as far as I remember, always been a part of your argumentative line, as a "redeeming factor" that removing it won't cause lots of damage. Will it might not do any damage to your content, it certainly does to that created by a few other select individuals.

I am not using this as an argument for culling, but to counter the argument "will destroy much content" for keeping.

Can we please get back to arguing about reasons to keep these lemming-turning teleporters? Arguments like "It's a feature, so let's keep it" won't cut the mustard.

[Dullstar]

Currently teleporters may turn lemmings around when entering them. More precisely (I think) it works as follows:
- If the teleporter object is set to "Face Left", then all lemmings will be turned around when entering the teleporter.
- If the receiver object is set to "Face Left", this this doesn't influence lemmings at all.
- If teleporter or receiver objects are set to "Flip", then this just mirrors the sprite, but doesn't influence the game physics.

From my experimentation, flipping influences direction; but I also don't see an option for Face Left. Were these options coupled? (using experimental new-formats)

My personal thoughts on the flipping situation: This option doesn't complicate Teleporters any further, as Clear Physics is a must in any level containing more than one anyway. I propose the following to make this behavior make a little more sense:

• Flipping the teleporter should continue functioning as is.
• Flipping the receiver should ALSO cause lemmings to turn.
• If both the teleporter and the receiver are flipped, I could argue for either behavior.
• Specify which behavior will occur in Clear Physics
• Replace the current teleporter/receiver pair indicator in Clear Physics with a line drawn between them (when the user hovers their mouse over the teleporter, of course - not always!) - it would work better for pairs that are far apart.
• The marble tileset's teleporter should have a different sound effect, because holy crap that thing sounds awful. That sound effect is probably fine for a trap, but defnitely not for a teleporter.

A possible reason the turning behavior is not used much could be a lack of awareness about it. I certainly didn't know it existed until this thread was created.

[Nepster]

From my experimentation, flipping influences direction; but I also don't see an option for Face Left. Were these options coupled? (using experimental new-formats)

Yes, they were combined in the editor due to their very similar nature, though they still exist as seperate flags in the player.

My personal thoughts on the flipping situation: This option doesn't complicate Teleporters any further, as Clear Physics is a must in any level containing more than one anyway.

I agree that Clear Physics is needed in all cases where a level has more than one teleporter. But in my experience most levels just use a single pair.

• Flipping the teleporter should continue functioning as is.
• Flipping the receiver should ALSO cause lemmings to turn.
• If both the teleporter and the receiver are flipped, I could argue for either behavior.

I should have said this already when IchoTolot suggested this, but unfortunately forgot: This would force the player to look at both the teleporter and receiver (or at clear physics mode), instead just at the teleporter. Not sure whether I prefer that...

• Replace the current teleporter/receiver pair indicator in Clear Physics with a line drawn between them (when the user hovers their mouse over the teleporter, of course - not always!) - it would work better for pairs that are far apart.

Interesting suggestion (though slightly off-topic ). As this is somewhat more difficult to code, I would first like to hear more opinions on it before implementing this change.

• The marble tileset's teleporter should have a different sound effect, because holy crap that thing sounds awful. That sound effect is probably fine for a trap, but defnitely not for a teleporter.

As with all suggestions regarding sounds: Please suggest alternatives, that you think fits the object better. It's trivial for me to change it, but I need to know which sound I should change it to.

[namida]

Interesting suggestion (though slightly off-topic ). As this is somewhat more difficult to code, I would first like to hear more opinions on it before implementing this change.

IIRC, TBitmap32 has a "DrawLine" method or something like that which could be used for this.