[DISC][PLAYER] The final new skill

[IchoTolot]

My standpoint is still that I am ok with projectiles and an angled laser blaser, as they provide something that we completely lack right now: Range.

As we already have a lot of similar methods that can achieve almost everything the slider can with ease (glider, floater, updrafts, force fields and tons of options to simulate the turnaround), I still stand by that it is a waste of a skill slot at our current state. The explanations and proofs to this were discussed excessivly before. Of course people see level potential at first glance here, but on a second look I guarantee that in almost all scenarios the slider can be substituted with something we have right now with little to no hassle.
The only cases where it cannot be substituted very easily would be the case where it gets combined with a ton of other movement skills, but especially with the new jumper I think our parkour options are big enough already and a new constructive or destructive skill would be a better addition.
Would we make a new engine and decide which skills we want in there then the slider could be an excellent idea, now it isn't.

So both of the other options (projectiles and laser blaster) would have my blessing as they are way less redundant and provide something that we don't have right now.

[namida]

Do you think we can narrow it down to a contest between these three now?

I don't think it's very likely that any other viable options will come along at this point, but there's no harm in leaving the topic open until I'm ready to start the "let's see which of these shows the most potential" phase.

[Strato Incendus]

Thanks for the response, namida!

@others:

I do think the Downward Builder has been officially discarded. However, as I said before, I think, the basic concept of a Downward Builder could be combined with a constructive range skill:

By implementing the L2 Roper with a fixed trajectory. (namida definitely stated there will be no "assign the skill, assign the direction", but a fixed-angle Roper would throw his projectile much like the Spear Thrower would, except there would be a rope attached to it that can act as a bridge. If the projectile itself is shaped like a spear, I proposed to call this skill "The Harpooner" ; if it's shaped like an "anchor" or hook, as in L2, I'd suggest to just stick with the Roper.)

The important part about this is that the rope can tear when the distance is too long, but the projectile (the anchor / hook) keeps flying. Thus, it could still serve as a thrown projectile, just like a (Spear) Thrower would. For example, to break falls by slamming the anchor by itself into a wall, or to make a ceiling that prevents a Climber from going up. Here the flat spear shape might come in handy, as IchoTolot pointed out earlier, because a spear could serve as a ceiling for a Shimmier. This is not possible in L2 (Climbers just climb through the spear), but it would be consistent with NeoLemmix physics.


Secondly, I think there is a case to be made for the Laser Blaster being a "destructive projectile skill".

The pairing is currently framed as "one creative, one destructive projectile", but we could potentially interpret it more liberally as "one creative, one destructive ranged skill".

The Roper would be a ranged constructive skill that indeed also uses a projectile - it's just much more flexible than a mere (Spear) Thrower, without being as broken as the L2 Roper that can single-handedly replace Builders and Platformers in many cases.

The Laser Blaster would be a ranged destructive skill. It could still achieve a lot of the purposes of an explosive, Bomber-like projectile (e.g. denting ceilings and walls to stop Shimmiers / Climbers, although some of those cases might require steel in order to stop the Laser Blaster at the right point). But it could also act like a Fencer at a distance or an upward Digger.

(Dullstar's comparison to the Fencer is actually a point in the skill's favour in my book, because in contrast to him, according to his own words, that is, I've been getting a lot of uses out of the Fencer!
It's also noteworthy that Fencer tunnels are the only ones that are too narrow for Shimmiers. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be the case with diagonal Laser-Blaster tunnels, since digging diagonally upward through the ceiling would of course lend itself very well to Shimmier interactions.
The problem for the Shimmier would probably not be insufficient height of the tunnel, but its steep increase. We were talking about potentially having Laser-Blaster tunnels with an altitude-to-longitude ratio of 6:1, i.e. just enough for regular Walkers to ascend over.)


Thus, my degree of support for the two-projectiles option depends heavily on what skills would count as potential candidates for these ranged constructive and destructive skills.

If it's already predictable that the destructive skill will be some sort of Bazooker / Mortar and the creative skill a (Spear) Thrower, then I'd consider those too limited. I'd rather just have the Laser Blaster or Slider on its own, in that case.

If however the destructive ranged skill can technically also be the Laser Blaster, and the creative skill the hook of a Roper (with the option of having the rope attached to the hook), then I'm all in!

This would be two L2 skills for the "price" of one, and two very flexible ones. That might actually be enough to make me drop my support for the Slider.

for instance, Slider>Jumper would have to be possible for it to be a worthwhile skill

Yes, that is definitely possible in L2, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in NeoLemmix if the Slider were to become the skill of choice.

[namida]

The pairing is currently framed as "one creative, one destructive projectile", but we could potentially interpret it more liberally as "one creative, one destructive ranged skill".

No we couldn't, because the reason the two are paired is specifically because of the extent to which they can share code. If they follow the same path, have the same collision detection etc, and all they need to do differently is create vs destroy terrain (and display a different graphic), this is barely more work than one skill.

On the other hand, having a typical projectile constructive skill + the ranged laser blaster is very much two seperate skills in terms of workload.

[Strato Incendus]

Thanks for the explanation, namida! Sorry, I must have missed it initially. I hadn't thought of coding similarity, but is totally makes sense.

In that case, as announced previously, that's me out on projectiles. My support goes to either the Slider or the Laser Blaster. And it seems like the poll is in accordance with this.

[namida]

The main goal of the poll was to eliminate any major underdogs (in this case: the jetboarder), not to outright pick winner(s). While the projectiles did get less votes, it wasn't enough of a margin to rule them out by any means.

Decisions between the remaining three might ultimately be decided by a poll (to clarify, this would be an "after some serious discussion about their potential + maybe even test runs"), but that will come later - as I've said, V12.11 is the soonest we'd be getting a new skill; for V12.10 the focus is on the menu adjustments.

[namida]

The next step for this is going to be to put together rough experimental builds containing the skills.

Some things to keep in mind when these come:
- They will likely be buggy.
- They will almost certianly not be the final implementation of any skill(s) that do get accepted into NL.
- Graphics will not be final, and probably won't even be very good.
- There will be no guarantee that they will remain available forever. I DO NOT want to see people releasing packs that "require the Slider experimental build" or whatever in the future.

The goals will be to figure out the finer details of how the skills should work, and to judge which ones have the most potential.

At this point I have also made a decision - I will not be limiting it to just one of the skills getting in. With that being said, that doesn't mean it's a guaranteed "every one of them gets in" either; they will still each need to be shown to be worthy of inclusion. I have my predictions about which ones will or won't make it at this point (vague hint: it's more than one, but not all), but all of the current contenders (and nothing else) will make it at least to this experimental build phase, and I could certianly be proven wrong either way. A combined build may be considered if a very strong argument is made for needing to test new skills in combination with each other, but I feel that's very much running the risk of experimental-required packs being created, so it will likely only happen for skills that are in a near-final-if-included state and very likely to make the cut.

[Dullstar]

A few questions:

Which skills are the current contenders? I believe it was the Slider, Laser Blaster, and the projectile constructive/destructive skills. Is that correct?

Based on the previous post, I take it it will be one build per skill, not one build containing all of the skills?

While you've made your point very clear about full packs, what would you think about a ~5-10 level minipack for the purposes of trying the skill in levels?

[namida]

Which skills are the current contenders? I believe it was the Slider, Laser Blaster, and the projectile constructive/destructive skills. Is that correct?

Correct.

Based on the previous post, I take it it will be one build per skill, not one build containing all of the skills?

Probably the projectiles combined in a single build, but otherwise yep. And for that matter, they probably won't all come at the same time.

While you've made your point very clear about full packs, what would you think about a ~5-10 level minipack for the purposes of trying the skill in levels?

I was more getting at, packs being released much later that require use of specific experimentals because of the creator's desire to use a feature that didn't make it into stable. If a pack is created for the purpose of evaluating the skills and deciding on them, with the implication that pack would either be abandoned or reworked if the skill doesn't make the cut, that's fine.

[Strato Incendus]

At this point I have also made a decision - I will not be limiting it to just one of the skills getting in. With that being said, that doesn't mean it's a guaranteed "every one of them gets in" either; they will still each need to be shown to be worthy of inclusion. I have my predictions about which ones will or won't make it at this point (vague hint: it's more than one, but not all)

Does that mean a final version of NeoLemmix which includes both the Laser Blaster and the Slider is now indeed an option?

In that case, how many levels per skill would be required to convince you that both skills are worthwhile?

Or, if we're talking quality instead of quantity, we should probably have some discussions in Level Design about what would make a "good" Laser Blaster / Slider level, vs. what type of level would lead us to assume those skills might be redundant or actively harmful.

The latter would be the crucial point, because if you're going to make the effort of programming all the contenders anyway, why would we actively remove one of them again at a later point? Obviously only if the additional ones add too much complexity (=from a new player's perspective, which may be as simple as too high a number of different skill types) without providing a sufficient additional benefit for level design.


I would certainly have ideas for both the Slider and the Laser Blaster (and yes, even the interaction, though that couldn't be tested until / unless indeed both were to make it into a stable version of NL). But of course, I don't want to create a bunch of levels for a skill that just barely ends up not making it - and then we'd end up precisely with the situation you want to avoid.

Especially now that we have some "completionist" new forum members who like to go back in history and dig up every possible tiny pack ever made, and play it on whatever obscure engine is required to open it. Of course, I in particular am someone whose packs have greatly benefited from those people, so I certainly won't complain about their "completionism".

But those are precisely the types of users who I can imagine keeping an old experimental version around just to play these "bonus skill" levels. And if there are players around for such levels, someone might think of creating them deliberately... not me, of course, I would never (no longer) do such a thing...

[IchoTolot]

would certainly have ideas for both the Slider and the Laser Blaster (and yes, even the interaction, though that couldn't be tested until / unless indeed both were to make it into a stable version of NL). But of course, I don't want to create a bunch of levels for a skill that just barely ends up not making it - and then we'd end up precisely with the situation you want to avoid.

Especially now that we have some "completionist" new forum members who like to go back in history and dig up every possible tiny pack ever made, and play it on whatever obscure engine is required to open it. Of course, I in particular am someone whose packs have greatly benefited from those people, so I certainly won't complain about their "completionism".

But those are precisely the types of users who I can imagine keeping an old experimental version around just to play these "bonus skill" levels. And if there are players around for such levels, someone might think of creating them deliberately... not me, of course, I would never (no longer) do such a thing...

I DO NOT want to see people releasing packs that "require the Slider experimental build" or whatever in the future.

I would gladly offer my services as a moderator to search around the forum and burn down all topics dedicated to levels/packs requiring those experimental builds.

The experimental builds serve to refine physics and to explore basic potential. No serious levels are required for this! Rather slap just enough terrain together to analyze certain skill behaviors. Experimental versions are not there for content creation, but for testing! No real levels are required there, just rough mock-ups.

Personally I won't hold back on the delete hammer if some people do not get this.

[Strato Incendus]

That was my question:
Are these demo levels just supposed to test the mechanics?
Or do they also have to prove in some way that the skill is worth introducing in the first place?

Because in the latter case, we would indeed have to design quality levels to prove this point - kind of like what I attempted with the Ghost levels. While with Ghost levels, I had no reason to assume Ghosts would have any chance of getting re-introduced, with these skills here, there seems to be a realistic chance for every one of them.

Thus, if we need to prove a skill is worthwhile by providing a certain level quality, it would be more of a shame to possibly see those levels go into the bin if the skill doesn't end up getting introduced.

For example, one point that the Slider's opponents level against it is that it provides even more support for "parkour" levels. Now, I for one happen to like those. If I want to convince those people the skill is still worthwhile, I'd have to deliberately design non-parkour levels featuring the Slider, and using it in different ways.

Although I assume that some of the opposition to the Slider might evaporate now if there is a clear chance that the Slider won't be the only final skill, and therefore won't automatically take up the slot of something else.

For example, if both the Laser Blaster and the Slider end up making it, the Slider's presence won't hurt anyone. I doubt Laser Blaster + both projectile skills, i.e. three new skills, would be a viable alternative?

[IchoTolot]

Are these demo levels just supposed to test the mechanics?
Or do they also have to prove in some way that the skill is worth introducing in the first place?

These two are basically the same thing. You don't need to build a whole level around a skill combination you want to show off.

If you want to show how a laser blaster tunnel can be used by a shimmier, just build that with the bare minimum and nothing more.

Example from a bug report topic: https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4901.0

Just just build the thing that should show off a certain behaivior. No decoration, things around it, etc.

You prove a skills worth by showing off unique skill applications/combinations, no need for any kind of level quality around it. That can come later.

If I want to convince those people the skill is still worthwhile, I'd have to deliberately design non-parkour levels featuring the Slider, and using it in different ways.

You won't convince me with any ammount of non-parkour levels. You can design levels around any theme anyway so that would proof nothing really.
You would need to show me quite a few non-niche use cases for a slider that cannot be easily replaced by already existent mechanics. At this point no argument from the slider side has done that. That is where you should aim at with your mock-up levels visualizing these use-cases. If the use-case you found can still be easily replaced by already existing mechnics, I'll be sure to post that level alteration as well.

Although I assume that some of the opposition to the Slider might evaporate now if there is a clear chance that the Slider won't be the only final skill, and therefore won't automatically take up the slot of something else.

For the record, I am still against adding mostly redundant skills and will argue against it.    That's why you should aim to show me that it is not redundant. Otherwise I rather have a skill less at my disposal that players don't need to get familar with.

I don't like adding mostly redundant skill like in the case of L2, we don't need a club-baser and a basher. Or a slider when we alreadyhave floaters, updrafts, gliders..... without these skills then it would be a worthwhile addition.

[kaywhyn]

In all honesty, I'm perfectly fine with maintaining the status quo, i.e, the 19 skills we currently have. Of course, I know this won't prevent going forth with adding at least one skill, seeing that much progress has already been made in terms of coding/implementation. I also definitely agree that a nice number like 20 is better than 19, although I think I'm more of a two skills added max person. In other words, either 0, 1, or 2 skills added are all perfectly viable for me. Definitely no more than 2. I think I would be content with either constructive/destructive projectile skills making it in, or if not that pair, then the laser blaster and slider together, though I'm leaning somewhat more to the latter. I also don't mind if any other pairs of skills make it in besides the two pairs I mentioned. That being said, I definitely don't have problems with any of the four proposed skills that managed to survive elimination, although I'm definitely undecided as to what should be implemented. I'm especially somewhat a bit unsure with the projectile ones, but they all sound great to me. Also, I'm definitely open to trying out the new skills in the experimental builds, and if I see enough value in them from levels testing the new skill(s), then I would be more than happy to say that I support adding it to NL. Same thing with if I don't see enough value, then I would oppose adding it after testing it in levels. The game is already difficult as is, so when adding in other skills we still should try to simplify gameplay as much as possible.

[GigaLem]

If what im hearing is correct then I'm glad to see that its more than one skill getting in.

Personally the one thing I'd to do with those experimental builds is probably make an example pack to see if I can show off the potential of each of the skills that get tested, I wouldn't make it topic or anything, It'd be more about trying to support and test each of the skills possibly getting in. I'd probably just make it an attachment for some of those testing topics or anything. Regardless I that whatever gets in even if we have more than 20 skills, its a solid number.