[SUG][PLAYER] Fix misleading traps!

[IchoTolot]

Alright, here is a new graphic made by Willem that should make the outer frame appear less solid, it is a little change though.

The frame is now more rough with cold black coal edges on the left and right. In the middle we have grey/red glowing coal. These should appear way less solid.

I think in both cases (deadly/non-deadly) it should do a better job of appearing non-solid.

If alterations are desired those are totally possible!

[namida]

I have to say that personally, I'm not a huge fan of that animation as part of orig_fire (this last part is important - I do like the graphic itself, I just don't think it fits into orig_fire as a replacement for the firepit very well). I also would agree that this graphic solves the issue for the left and right sides, but if I were to encounter that graphic sitting on top of terrain, I would at no point even consider the possibility that lemmings can walk past underneath it - if anything, I think this new graphic is worse at communicating that. Thus, I don't feel that that animation in any way solves the issue at hand here (however, I do feel it's a good animation for use in a new, custom object, with an accurate trigger area).

Any graphic proposed needs to (a) very clearly fit the existing trigger area (if changing that was still on the table, then solution: change it and keep the animation exactly as-is), and (b) fit into the orig_fire style in terms of color selection etc. Beyond what's needed to achieve those, it should change as little as possible.

As the objects were unreachable this is anything but not a fix. The change did not affect the level gameplay (no fixing) and broke the visual aspect.

This level previously had a fire object that looked like it should be deadly, but could actually be walked under. It now has a fire object that's just as oddly placed as it was before (namely, placed such that if a lemming were to reach it, the lemming could safely walk past it), but now has visuals that reflect that. In this particular level, it's trivial to see that one fire object is unreachable and the other two aren't important to have accurate triggers (because if the lemmings miss the fire trigger, they fall out of the level anyway instead).

Let's look at some of the others. 0419, for example, every fire pit is reachable. 0414, which you mentioned as an example that breaks, actually does the exact opposite - the fire pit now sits perfectly on the ground instead of being slightly buried in it. 0319, the fire pit is definitely reachable and at least at a quick glance I would not immediately rule out the possibility of going near it; this change has made it clear that should you reach the area it's in, you can safely walk past it. 0315, most of the fire pits are accessible and clearly intended to be obstacles - and again, these don't really break as such, though one does look slightly awkward.

I didn't look at every example level you mentioned, and there are some where I do agree that ultimately it didn't provide any benefit - such as 0404 - but I think you are very much overestimating the caused problems vs solved them ratio of this change. Ultimately, I still feel just as much as I did before that, at worst, this change will trade a physics clarity problem for a visual oddity one, which is less severe by far.

[namida]

Here's a possible animation I came up with. This moves the fire pit up 2 pixels, and puts small support beams under it so existing levels don't have gaps. (Attached image can be dropped in to replace the existing PNG in either stable or V12.7.0-RC NeoLemmix; no NXMO change needed.)

I don't know how I feel about the trigger area re: the top of the object, though... Honestly, personally, I prefer the current (shrunken) one. I feel the sides are less critical; I'm okay with keeping the full width here.

Screenshots

From editor:

IchoTolot suggested on Discord combining this with Dullstar's glowing frame idea. I like the concept, I'm not sure how well I feel it fits the style (especially in regard to limited colors), but maybe it can be done. I do feel that, unless the object still gets shrunken inwards horizontally, only the bottom part of the frame should be glowing; this would clearly distinguish the deadly bottom from the non-deadly sides.

[IchoTolot]

IchoTolot suggested on Discord combining this with Dullstar's glowing frame idea. I like the concept, I'm not sure how well I feel it fits the style (especially in regard to limited colors), but maybe it can be done. I do feel that, unless the object still gets shrunken inwards horizontally, only the bottom part of the frame should be glowing; this would clearly distinguish the deadly bottom from the non-deadly sides.

That's correct. Maybe if compared to Dullstar's posted example the colors are slightly more red it fits the style better.

It also would add another option designwise: Burry it in the ground or let it stand on the support beams. So this would lead to more possible desgin choices.

[Dullstar]

For clarification, is the support beam example the same size as the original object horizontally? If so, I think it's a good solution.

I agree with this statement by Icho:

Yes, but it's still a lot more extra work. I still consider a level with visual flaws a flawed level that critically needs fixing. It doesn't matter to me if it's only decorational it's still flawed.

Resizing the object horizontally would definitely create visual flaws. The support beams would alter visuals, but I think the levels would still look fine and wouldn't need any critical fixes.

I also reiterate my suspicion that the visual breaks from multiple placed in rows is likely higher than the number that would be broken by the exact placement of the trigger area. If minor alterations break it, the level probably required too much precision to begin with, and I hate pixel-precise solutions.

[namida]

For clarification, is the support beam example the same size as the original object horizontally? If so, I think it's a good solution.

You can literally see how it looks a few posts up. It's two little vertical supports at each end, not a horizontal beam.

[namida]

Is there anyone who would prefer one of the previous proposals (or another specific graphic, not just "something else in general") over the one present in the latest V12.7.0-RC's? I'd like to wrap this topic up soon.

(Horizontal resize will be considered later. As that's a 100% backwards-compatible change, I see no issue with doing that at a later date.)

[namida]

Seems not, so let's close this now.