[SUG][PLAYER] Fix misleading traps!

[IchoTolot]

I would consider it very bad design if a level used a fire object perched on terrain, like the lower-right object in my picture, and expected the player to guess that it's safe for lemmings.

Well, burning them is even less safe than walking through. I would be way more furios if I lose lemmings where I thought it would be safe.

Yes, it's bad design, but here I think the core problem is with the object itself and not the trigger. It's a fire hazard with a solid like frame. I don't think enlarging the trigger would solve the problem here, it would only be irritating in another way and if a change won't solve the problem then why change at all.

Proposal:

- Change the graphic to better represent the trigger-area. An animation on the frame can make it clear that it is indeed not solid. (Like glowing lighting effects for example)

[ccexplore]

If the solid-looking metal frame has a kind of glow animation (ie. oscillating slightly in lighting and hue), maybe that can help convey deadliness if we were to expand the trigger area accordingly?  I'm picturing a red-hot iron rod basically (but maybe a bit more subtle than that in the proposed animation).

[IchoTolot]

I still think conveying non-deadliness is the way to go, as surviving is less rage inducing than dieing if errors are made.

Also it would ensure no side-effects in terms of broken content are occuring what is likely with a trigger-area incease by 2 pixels in 3 directions.

[namida]

Perhaps we need to look at this from a different direction: Instead of expanding the trigger area, could we remove the sides from the graphic? (Without actually shrinking the object graphic's size; ie: it would just have a few pixels of empty space around it.) Or even move the sides inwards a bit?

If there's an agreement "we should keep the trigger area as is" but the graphic remains undecided, I'm okay with not making the graphic change just yet. As it would only have a visual impact, not a physics impact, on levels, it's less of a problem to change this later.

[IchoTolot]

Perhaps we need to look at this from a different direction: Instead of expanding the trigger area, could we remove the sides from the graphic? (Without actually shrinking the object graphic's size; ie: it would just have a few pixels of empty space around it.) Or even move the sides inwards a bit?

Well, the frame is quite often used for decoration. Just the flame by itself looks quite weird without anything around it. 

Moving the sides inwards and then apply ccexplore's proposal would also be a good enough solution in my book (Trigger stays the same and the frame is menacingly glowing).

EDIT:

After a bit of a discussion in discord we gathered the following:

- For a deadly frame would either have to change physics+animation or the size of the general visuals+animation which would alter the apperance of levels. So here we have either a visual or physics change for sure.
- For a non-deadly frame only a animation change would be needed. Like cold coal falling out of the sides of the pit over the frame. So no 100% need for a visual or physics change here.

In both cases we would need an animator for the fire and blue fire graphic though to make the case clearer.

[namida]

In both cases we would need an animator for the fire and blue fire graphic though to make the case clearer.

It should be easy enough to do some copy-pasting magic - or at worst, some code magic - to copy the new animation from one to the other.

Secondary animations might be useful here, by the way - this way the coals animation and the burning animation don't need the same number of frames. This could even be done as a secondary animation that's identically copied to both. (Yes, the common use case is to have a constant and triggered animations on the same object, or to show different graphics at different times; but the system most certianly supports - intentionally - being able to just have multiple standard animations like this, with different frame counts or to easily copy between objects, too!)

[namida]

I don't want to hold up 12.7 for this, so I'm declaring an ultimatum here: If we don't have consensus, or if there is consensus but not an animation to go with it, I'm going to make the calls myself as follows:

- Once 12.7.0 RC is released (planned for Friday evening / Saturday morning), the trigger area will no longer be up for discussion. If no solid agreement to change it has been reached, it will be permanently remaining as it currently is, and this will not be reconsidered again in the future, ever. If the agreement is "change it, but we need a new graphic to go with it" and no one is offering to make this new graphic, then I will treat this as "no agreement" (because it relies on something we don't have). In the case that I have to fall back to this, I will make a graphic that either removes the sides, or shrinks them inwards - whichever I feel looks better based on some testing.

- Once 12.7.0 stable is released (sometime in November), I'll be much less willing to change the graphic, although this one is not quite to the extent of "it will never happen no matter what".

The statement with regard to trigger areas will apply to all objects in official styles, not just the fire pit. These next couple of days are the last chance to propose any alterations to their trigger areas - from NL 12.7.0 RC onwards, they will be considered final, and only the graphics may change.

[Proxima]

I'm okay with leaving the object as-is. Icho makes a good point that it makes sense for all sides of the frame to be treated the same, so if the fire pit is raised 2 pixels (as in the lower-right of my screenshot, now on the previous page) then there is a gap between the flame itself and the terrain underneath, and it makes sense that lemmings can squeeze through there. I still have reservations, because I'm not sure how easily this would be understood by new players; but that's not something I can know for sure. In any case, the frame is often buried in terrain, so in most cases this distinction doesn't matter.

I'm definitely against removing the frame from the graphic, because this would damage existing content.

It's possible we could animate the frame so it looks less like terrain, but I don't think that's necessary or a good idea. Given how often this object is placed in a dip inside terrain (e.g. Fun 28/Mayhem 5), this would hide the animation or make it look strange. Also, this isn't a problem unique to this object -- most traps have parts that look solid but are not, e.g. the gun in the bubble tileset. New players just have to get used to the rule "part of the object is deadly = entire object is non-solid", and there's nothing we can do to change that.

[Simon]

The bottom-right fire, I still perceive this as deadly to lemmings walking on the top terrain bar. It even looks as if the bottom-right fire is the way to place this tile on even ground. Rarely does a one-piece trap sit so nicely and flat on terrain. (10-ton weight is 2 pieces.)

If the bottom-right trap were one pixel higher, I'd accept lems walking through unharmed.

(As a kid, I expected the sides to be solid. Really, all 3 sides of the frame are problematic design. Not a good argument here, thus, back to the matter.)

If we treat all 3 sides the same, then the frame should be deadly. Or do you want to put these firepits side-by-side, overlapping neighboring frames even, and have lems land unharmed in the 2-pixel-wide vertical frame piece?

Hmm, lems burning in the grey left/right sides is also not perfect. Still, if you stick these pits next to each other, it really looks like the TA should span all the horizontal space.

I don't buy the argument that all 3 frame parts are created equal in the first place. Lems touching the sides will have no overlap with flames. Lems walking underneath have the entire body covering the flames.

Nasty decision either way. Increasing the TA by 4 pixels horizontally and 2 pixels vertically is no easy decision. Keeping the frame peaceful is wrrrrrr. Or enlarge the TA downwards until bottom-right firepit (in Proxima's image) becomes deadly, at the expense of treating all 3 frames the same, and allow lems falling through the vertical bars unharmed. Nan nan nan, tough.

It's possible we could animate the frame so it looks less like terrain, but I don't think that's necessary or a good idea.

We can make the bottom bar look less solid. Maybe like a gridiron, or like feet. Then it wouldn't look like sitting squarely on the ground anymore. Hmm.

Whatever we do, the general problem is that the lem's pin is in the ground, but TAs often don't take that into account. If the one-piece trap sits squarely on the ground, it should be deadly.

-- Simon

[namida]

Here's some screenshots from in-game with the sides shrunken inwards.

In the case of Fun 18, I have screenshots with and without terrain modifications. The extra terrain that has been removed isn't necessary for the trigger area to be reachable (the objects were buried enough for that), but rather, seemed to only serve the function of filling in the transparent area.

Mayhem 2 looks a bit iffy. The rest of these look fine to me, as does a couple of others I checked but didn't feel added anything of value to the comparison.

I haven't compared on any custom levels yet. I've been holding off on preparing my official-style-using levels for V12.7 until this topic concluded so theoretically that would offer a chance to compare some - but I've used this object in exactly three levels - two of which are early/repeat versions of each other ("Falling Away From Everything" and "Die The Death Of The Damned" from LPI; with the third level being "The Troublesome Trio Go To Hell" from LPA). I'll include this graphic with the V12.7.0 RC release though, so it'll be possible to compare on any level - if we get a better animation, we can replace it for the actual stable release.

[Dullstar]

For what it's worth, I think the bottom right case where the object is completely resting on the ground should be deadly. Expanding the trigger area to make all of the bars deadly is then probably a good idea for consistency. I don't think the object's visual size should be altered, but I am not against animating them to make them look hotter.

[namida]

One basically-negligable other change I've made: The hanging lights in the Xmas style will now be horizontally resizable. This was mostly done because there's literally no reason not to do this.

[Dullstar]

If the solid-looking metal frame has a kind of glow animation (ie. oscillating slightly in lighting and hue), maybe that can help convey deadliness if we were to expand the trigger area accordingly?  I'm picturing a red-hot iron rod basically (but maybe a bit more subtle than that in the proposed animation).

If we want to do this, I made a mockup of the idea. I can definitely do better with the colors (specifically I think the areas where I used the yellow color on the right side need adjusted), but I figured for a mockup it's fine. What do you think of the effect?

My process to create it was drawing a red version of the bars as a new layer on top of this sprite, than adjusting the opacity of the layer on each frame. I do think it would likely look better as a secondary animation with a different number of frames. I can probably have a finalized version done by Thursday of next week. It likely won't take too long, but I will not be available to do it until sometime Tuesday or Wednesday night due to travel.

[Proxima]

With all respect to namida as creator and maintainer of NL, I think it's abundantly clear we need more time to decide on this. We are as far from a consensus as ever, and several different ideas are being developed.

[ccexplore]

I like Dullstar's modified fire pit, maybe a slight bit too subtle to convey the dangers of the frame, but at the same time the animation looks very natural and I think may be worth doing for pure visual reasons, even if we later decided against making the frame deadly.