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

[Nepster]

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.

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.
In addition the usual teleporters are far more used than the lemming-turning ones. So I suggest removing lemming-turning teleporters completely from NeoLemmix.

[Strato Incendus]

I haven't used this feature myself yet, but merely becoming aware of this possibility makes me take my usual liberal standpoint on this: If it's barely used anyway, where's the harm in keeping it? Especially when you seem to have found existing content using this feature which would get harmed by this?

Teleporters are confusing anyway for people who plan their route through the level ahead of starting the game, because in a level with several teleporters you never know which ones are linked. To find out about that, you'll have to use true physics-mode anyway, and doing that will also tell you the direction the teleporter is facing. So even ahead-planners don't need to wait for a lemming to walk into a teleporter to find out in which direction it is facing.

EDIT: Just noticed the arrows for teleporters and receivers don't actually point left and right, as they do with hatches, but up and down. Would it be possible to make them diagonal?

Like: Arrow up (teleporter) or down (receiver) pointing to the left or the right to show the direction of movement.

[IchoTolot]

I am against the cull.

I used turning teleporters in a number of cases and I am always fair and marked a turn when it's nessesary with arrows or simliar tools. In my levels you always see the turn when it matters! An example would be: "Beware of the Overload"  from contest 10 (+ more from my private level pile). In this case the cull would lead to a totally ugly fix where I need a vertical wall left to the receiver to force a turn. I really would like to keep this function as it provides more control over teleporter set-ups and easy level designing.

Why not simply add an arrow mark in true physics mode for the teleporter to clarify the direction?

[Nepster]

Why not simply add an arrow mark in true physics mode for the teleporter to clarify the direction?

Because (contrary to hatches) the lemming direction depends on the direction from which the lemming enters the teleporter.

[IchoTolot]

Why not simply add an arrow mark in true physics mode for the teleporter to clarify the direction?

Because (contrary to hatches) the lemming direction depends on the direction from which the lemming enters the teleporter.

Then add a "turn" writing to the teleporter.

[Strato Incendus]

Then add a "turn" writing to the teleporter.

*upvote* Simple as that, right?

I'm always for "fixing before culling"! Fixing may require more effort than culling on the programmers' part, I get it, but recklessly culling stuff makes the effort other level creators have put in go to waste.

[Nepster]

I wouldn't call writing "TURN" in clear physics a proper "fix" to the problem. Ideally players would never need Clear Physics mode, so any solution involving it is more of a temporary fix until we get a better idea. The same applies to the visual distinction between teleporters and receivers and the pairing of them.

In my opinion, this discussion shows again the different point of view of you two and myself: You consider the problem from the level creator's perspective, where having the feature doesn't hurt and in some situation makes the level creation easier, but accept on the other hand the additional effort for level players who have to look into clear physics mode.
I consider the problem more from a player's perspective and see the possible confusion with the teleporter direction, but readily accept that level designers may have to put in a bit more effort to adapt their levels to this restriction.

[Colorful Arty]

Why not add a "Face right" box to the object?

[Nepster]

Sorry, but I don't understand your suggestion. Could you add a little more explanation, please?

"Face Left" is a (misnamed) setting in the editor. Usually objects face right (like hatches or preplaced lemmings), and "Face Left" changes that direction. For teleporters this has a different effect: Without this setting, teleporters preserve the direction of lemmings. With this setting, teleporters change this direction.

[IchoTolot]

I also have an idea for the easier understanding in the editor:
Activating "face left" (or "flip" if we merge "face left" with "flip") on either the teleporter or the connected receiver leads for the lems to turn, instead of just the teleporter. This would eliminate the confusing editor variations. If both use "flip" it will still be just a normal turn, so basically an OR switch.

I still think the writing "TURN" is an alright fix, as on most teleporter levels users tend to activate clear physics anyway to observe the teleporter/receiver connections. Also after the first teleport the user immidiatly sees the situation anyway + at least I always mark my turning teleporters where the direction matters with terrain anyway.

[Colorful Arty]

Yeah, Icho's way is better than my suggestion.

[Strato Incendus]

Also after the first teleport the user immidiatly sees the situation anyway

Yeah, that's also my line of thinking. However, I've come to know that some users here have the ambition to solve any level entirely in their head even before the first lemming leaves the hatch... and they therefore generally are not too impressed by this "just send a single lemming in there and see what happens" mentality. That's what I meant by "ahead-planners", the ideal that every level should theoretically be solveable on the very first try if you're clever enough.

Basically, this is the same argument we have with hidden traps: Once a lemming has gone there, you know it's there. But you need to send a lemming there first to find out, and might have to change your solution because of that. Or you need to use true physics mode.

I'm not saying this planning-ahead expectation should have to be met or catered to; I just acknowledge that it exists. Personally I have created several levels that break with player expectations (without being unfair trolling levels) - one example being Paralems' "Skies aflame" which apparently several people considered insolveable just by looking at it .

[namida]

From a level designing point of view: This option may be rarely used, but it allows for situations that would be messy or even impossible without it.
From a playing point of view: Teleporters can already be unclear and need the player to resort to clear physics mode; so it isn't really an issue if there's one more detail that shows up there. It does not add execution difficulty to levels.
From a coding point of view: As I recall, it's pretty much one line of code in the teleporter's activation - "if teleporter has this property, flip lemming's direction". Removing it won't result in any great improvement to the code's tidyness or simplicity.

Overall, I don't see how culling it would be justified - again, it's breaking levels and removing options for level designers for very little benefit, similar to the radiation and antisplat pad culls. Giving the feature a more accurate name in the level editor is definitely a good idea.

[Nepster]

From a playing point of view: Teleporters can already be unclear and need the player to resort to clear physics mode; so it isn't really an issue if there's one more detail that shows up there. It does not add execution difficulty to levels.

This is only true if there is more than one pair of teleporters, but in a lot of cases there is only one. And for those cases, the turning around would be the only reason to look into the clear physics mode.

[Strato Incendus]

again, it's breaking levels and removing options for level designers for very little benefit, similar to the radiation and antisplat pad culls.

You speak from my soul, namida . I don't want to warm up the radiation debate here; there might have been ways to fix the execution issues by implementing blueprints for these objects, but these are a lot more difficult to calculate when the lemming is free to move... so for these objects, "fixing" would probably have required a lot more code.

Anti-splat pads are a different thing: Pit Lems for example contains a level ("Base jumping", LOL 10] where the difference between anti-splat pad and updraft matters. Because splat height seems to be re-calculated starting from the point where the lemming leaves the updraft, so an updraft slightly above the ground will save a lemming passing through, whereas an anti-splat pad won't unless it is built / platformed / stoned into. This level in my view is a strictly fair puzzle that can't be replicated in the New Formats version.

This is also part of the reason why I'm barely using the New Format player yet; I get that a lot of bugs etc. have to be taken care of before new juicy stuff gets added (and adding new stuff is more work, obviously). So far however, I mainly see the removed features, or things that are being changed just for the sake of it, like the new title screen which I find rather ugly. This is a shame, because I appreciate all the time and effort Nepster and colleagues put into this, so no offense here. I just can't see myself using the new formats editor in the near future... unless I'd desperately want to build levels with the spooky tileset.

Any packs that come out exclusively for the new player I will of course attempt to play, also to report any technical issues I might find and thereby help improving the new formats version through feedback.

At the current time however, Raymanni's Halloween pack is the only new formats-exclusive one, and I managed to get stuck on it pretty early . All the other packs I'm currently playing, even if they're already available for new formats as well, I'm still playing on 10.13 - and if it's just for the nicer title screens!

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?