Lemmings re-make

[ccexplore]

I think we should also make levels that teach the following tricks:

-Bashing with diggers
-Reverse bash/mining
-Piercing trough terrain with builder (aka razor's edge trick)
-Dig away the edges of steel
-Climb/bomb trick
-Reverse miners with blockers
-Learn that traps have trigger areas (especially water)

My intentions is that only for "serious" glitches should we make a trainer level.  For more basic tricks, rather than specifically making a trainer level, the trick should simply show up in a regular level.  Of course, I guess what counts as "serious" is up to debate, but I'd certainly say the "climb-thru-terrain" glitch is more "serious" then "reverse miners with blockers" or even "dig away edges of steel".

On that note, your list makes little sense.  "Climb/bomb trick" already showed up in Mayhem 19, so I don't think this is a trick that needs to be "taught" (and honestly, that's pretty basic).  "Reverse miners with blockers" can be "taught" more or less the same manner as how Mayhem 5 "taught" the analogous behavior with builders.  Indeed, I'd say that the only trick you mentioned in the list that might merit a trainer level would be the "Dig away edges of steel" glitch, and that glitch about the water's trigger area.

[ccexplore]

With only five traps, there are two backroutes, one Cheapo-specific and one not. In the current version, the hidden sixth trap kills the CustLemm backroute but leaves the Cheapo-specific one in, so in the CustLemm version you could leave the level as it is.... I just think I prefer not to rely on hidden traps.

It appears that due to a fortuitous miscalculation on my part (and how CustLemm always aligns, and therefore can shift up, trigger area's y-coordinate to multiples of 4), in the CustLemm version, the trigger area extends higher than I thought, in fact up to 7 pixels above ground level.

So it is impossible in my CustLemm version to use one builder to span 2 traps.  The downside is, due to the same miscalculation, the trigger area is such that if you are merely 1 pixel below the floor level, you would no longer trigger the traps.

The question of course is, whether there'd be any issues with going underneath the traps.  I believe the spacing of the traps and the raised steel area near the traps altogher makes it impossible to breach all the way thru to the right even with the steel-failure glitch (which remember, also use up blockers) and bombers.  But I welcome others to make an effort to prove me wrong.

Anyway, this means I can probably remove the hidden trap if that's what you want.  I'll put out another verison later tonight.

[ccexplore]

In fact, although I can't confirm it until I'm back home, I think even if I do shift the vertical position of the electrodes slightly so that the trigger area only extends 3 rather than 7 pixels above ground, it is still able to (albeit barely) prevent one from spanning both traps with one builder.

Which makes me wonder whether your Cheapo style has accurate trigger area for that trap.  The data from the PC/DOS version gives a trigger area of width and height 8, with the top row of trigger area located 36 pixels below the top row of pixels of the trap object.  Of course, it's also possible that maybe Cheapo checks for collision with trigger areas a little differently.

[Proxima]

I'm a bit confused -- has the purpose of the remake changed to "teaching glitches" or is that something else?

All the ones that Leviathan listed (except, arguably, digging the edge of steel, and reversing miners) are tricks rather than glitches.

For most of the tricks mentioned I can think of a good existing level that would serve to teach the trick without being a "training" level. "The Razor's Edge" for that trick is an obvious example. I think it is a good idea, for each trick, to have a medium-difficulty level in which there is a puzzle, but finding the trick is the hardest feature, rather than a training level. I guess that's what you meant.

About the electrode trap, I suppose there is a question about whether it's essential to have the exact same trigger area. Most of the triggers in the Cheapo styles have a visible 1x4 area, and it seemed a bit unfair to the player to have the actual trigger be the space up to 7px above the line.....

[ccexplore]

All the ones that Leviathan listed (except, arguably, digging the edge of steel, and reversing miners) are tricks rather than glitches.

Reversing miners with blockers is a glitch in your book?  Even I cannot agree.

[Proxima]

I said "arguably"    Thing is, we'd need to know if it was an intended behaviour, and at the moment I don't know of any evidence for either side except for the purely negative evidence that none of the standard levels use the trick. Maybe you know something I don't?

And what do you think about the traps? Should I be more careful about keeping the trigger areas exactly the same as in CustLemm?

[ccexplore]

I said "arguably" &#A0; &#A0;Thing is, we'd need to know if it was an intended behaviour, and at the moment I don't know of any evidence for either side except for the purely negative evidence that none of the standard levels use the trick. Maybe you know something I don't?

Um, your point about "none of the standard levels use the trick" would apply to quite a lot of other tricks, such as the "razor's edge" (build brick protrusion) trick.

And I'll PM you something more about the behavior.

And what do you think about the traps? Should I be more careful about keeping the trigger areas exactly the same as in CustLemm?

It's your style, so it's up to you; I don't have a strong opinion either way.  The minimum trigger area in CustLemm is 4x4, but that's mainly an implementation limit and not really reflective of intentions.  Though, I suppose, making the trigger areas the same may sometimes aid the porting of levels between Cheapo and CustLemm.

[Proxima]

Um, your point about "none of the standard levels use the trick" would apply to quite a lot of other tricks, such as the "razor's edge" (build brick protrusion) trick.

True, but the Razor's Edge trick is a logical consequence of the way we're taught that the builder works in Fun 7; it would be a glitch if the trick wasn't possible. Not so with the builder-turning-non-walkers trick.

(My point wasn't meant to be a sufficient condition for a trick being a glitch, just weak evidence that might tip the balance in the absence of anything stronger.)

And I'll PM you something more about the behavior.
In Lemmings, blockers actually are capable of turning just about anything, not just builders and walkers...

Ah, thanks. That (which is something I hadn't observed, except for fallers) is good enough evidence to satisfy me &#A0;

It's your style, so it's up to you; I don't have a strong opinion either way. &#A0;The minimum trigger area in CustLemm is 4x4, but that's mainly an implementation limit and not really reflective of intentions. &#A0;Though, I suppose, making the trigger areas the same may sometimes aid the porting of levels between Cheapo and CustLemm.

Yes, that is a point. I think on reflection what I'll do is enlarge all the 4x2 trigger areas (which is what most of the traps on my styles currently have) to 4x4, as I think otherwise the discrepancy with the ones that are 8x8 on CustLemm is too great, but I won't make them larger than that because it does seem unfair to me that the lemming gets killed when it's nowhere near the visible trigger area.

As for Rhapsody, I'll keep the seven traps on the Cheapo level, as that's what I prefer for that version, but you can leave the CustLemm version with five (and remove the hidden trap if you're quite sure the backroute is impossible).

[JM]

Nobody has answered my question yet.

Would an invisible level be good for this Lemmings re-make?

[tseug]

Maybe one, at most two. Something like an easy one to show the player that things can be invisible, and a later hard one to make them go crazy.

[ccexplore]

I'm not too big a fan of invisible levels.  But, here's an interest albeit somewhat sadistic idea:

Take a normal level that requires some precision (say, for builders).  Now in a later version, you got the same level but the terrain's now invisible.

(It's not necessarily that nasty if designed correctly.  For example, the slope of a platform can help clue in the player where the lemming is located.)

[Proxima]

I have two quick questions.

One, how does CustLemm work with regard to one digger releasing another? (This could have a large effect on a couple of my levels in which I use this trick.)

Two, did you (ccexplore that is) read my above post? Just checking.

[geoo]

In Custlemm, you can release a digger with another one only if you set the second digger at the same position as the first is, therefore you cannot create steps that way.

[Proxima]

Right...... I feared it would be like that.

That kills the 100% solution to "We'll meet again", but the level itself can manage fine without that.

"Just a Minute (Part Five)" and "Zorn's Lemming" have more serious problems. It's possible JAM5 can be salvaged by requiring only 99/100 to be saved, but getting the timing to transfer to CustLemm (by which I mean working out how wide the wall needs to be, where the one-way zone needs to be placed etc. so that the lemmings reach the right places at the right times) would be a nightmare anyway, and we may be better off just leaving the level alone.

As for Zorn, I'm still in the middle of making other changes to see how high I can raise that gap, and I've had one radical idea this morning that may, if it works out, allow me to raise it quite a lot. But, for different reasons, if I use that idea it would be a nightmare to get the level to work the same in CustLemm even without the digger release trick, so the best way out might be to leave it with the current gap height and make the solution you found the "real" one.

[ccexplore]

Two, did you (ccexplore that is) read my above post? Just checking.

Yes I did.

In case you're wondering my general silence the past few days, busy work week.  Plus I'm still trying to find where I misplaced my flash drive that contains some sketchings related to remaking your levels.

Right...... I feared it would be like that.

I suppose it's a possibility to hack CustLemm to bring it more in line with the behavior seen in most other versions of the game, including Amiga, Genesis, SNES and Mac.  With all those other versions having the same behavior that allows a 2 or 3 digger solution to "We All Fall Down", I'd say the different CustLemm behavior can strongly be argued as a glitch.

But somehow I think this "bugfix" will receive scant support.

but getting the timing to transfer to CustLemm (by which I mean working out how wide the wall needs to be, where the one-way zone needs to be placed etc. so that the lemmings reach the right places at the right times) would be a nightmare anyway

It'll take some work, yes.  But I'm still willing to consider remaking the level.

As for Zorn, I'm still in the middle of making other changes to see how high I can raise that gap, and I've had one radical idea this morning that may, if it works out, allow me to raise it quite a lot. But, for different reasons, if I use that idea it would be a nightmare to get the level to work the same in CustLemm even without the digger release trick, so the best way out might be to leave it with the current gap height and make the solution you found the "real" one.

Feel free to PM me what your idea is and what the problem would be in transferring it to CustLemm.