[DISC][PLAYER] New skills general discussion

[namida]

That being the case, I retract my statements regarding pixel-precision as an argument against the Spearer, in the same way that I still don't believe that the Grenadier is necessarily "backroute-prone", and to give marks against it in this regard seems unfair. How is it any more backroute-prone than any other skill?

Some skills are absolutely more backroute-prone than others, and this is not really debatable - it's well established over years of level designing. Walker, Builder and Stoner (and in L3D's case, Turner) are the worst offenders. Yes - you can often modify a level to make it backroute resistant; this does not change that some skills lend themselves more to causing backroutes than others do. Yes, basically every skill can lead to backroutes, but think about how many backroutes revolve around eg. a Floater or a Swimmer or even a Digger; compared to how many revolve around the higher-risk skills mentioned before.

What is still debatable is where Grenaders (and the other skills) fall on this spectrum, and how mitigatable their risks are. And indeed, modifications to the skill's physics to reduce that risk are an option if the current iteration is deemed to be too broken - it is not a matter of "the implementation as it stands right now must meet expectations".

One thing I will make clear is that I do consider this to be an important point. NeoLemmix's main focus is on puzzles; a skill that does not lend itself well to this, no matter how fun it is and/or how well it lends itself to open-ended exploratory and/or execution difficulty levels, is not a suitable fit for NeoLemmix. Going into this, the Grenader was my favorite of the skills, so this is not that I am "biased" against it in any way - it's that I genuine have concerns about this point with regards to it. Assertions that "this doesn't matter" or even more so that "all skills are backroute prone" (which ignores the difference in extent of how backroute prone some are compared to others) are ultimately going to be meaningless - if the evidence points to that it is a high risk skill and little is offered in the way of reasonable mitigations that don't give away the solution; then ultimately the skill is very likely to be rejected no matter how many assertions have been made that "this doesn't matter". But again, let me be very clear - I am not at this stage saying "the Grenader is too broken and must be rejected". All I am saying is that this line of questioning needs to be explored further - and that while the Grenader is my biggest concern, it should be explored for all four skills to be safe.

[WillLem]

Here's an example level in which a Grenadier causes an obvious backroute. And, two different ways to fix that backroute, the first of which presents the exact same intended solution, and the second of which makes minor changes to the solution, but still retains the general spirit of it.

Admittedly, the second solution is not quite as elegant as the first, as one of the neat things about this level is the two sides working together - and the second solution prevents that altogether, but bear in mind that this is just to show that there are multiple ways of dealing with this backroute, one of which preserves the intended solution, and the other of which makes minor changes to it.

The point here is, of course, that even if a skill causes a backroute, there are plenty of ways to fix it.

Also, the other more subtle point that I'm making here is that it is impossible to say without extensive evidence that a skill is prone to backroutes. We may know that Walkers, Stoners, Builders etc are more backroute-prone than other skills, but that is likely due to months and years of experience working with those skills.

[namida]

But again, let me be very clear - I am not at this stage saying "the Grenader is too broken and must be rejected". All I am saying is that this line of questioning needs to be explored further - and that while the Grenader is my biggest concern, it should be explored for all four skills to be safe.

[WillLem]

But again, let me be very clear - I am not at this stage saying "the Grenader is too broken and must be rejected". All I am saying is that this line of questioning needs to be explored further - and that while the Grenader is my biggest concern, it should be explored for all four skills to be safe.

OK, to progress the discussion from the point of view that backroute-proneness is an issue which needs to be addressed, so far I have presented evidence that the Grenadier is not un-fixably backroute-prone.

Also, I'm not just trying to protect the inclusion of the Grenadier skill, I'm making this point for the sake of any and all skills: there's no way to prove that a skill is backroute-prone without first demonstrating it to be so in such a way that is non-fixable.

[Proxima]

Wasn't that the original intention of the Grenader anyway? I remember the "dent the ceiling to stop Shimmiers" discussion. A "dent" to me sounds like a Bomber's crater at max.

No, it wasn't. The original intention was simply to have a skill capable of causing a bomber-like explosion at a distance, and stopping shimmiers was just one possible application I thought of.

I absolutely did not intend to imply that I thought of the Grenader having an especially small crater, and one careless word choice by one person does not mean "many of us" thought of it that way.

* * *

Also, I'm not just trying to protect the inclusion of the Grenadier skill, I'm making this point for the sake of any and all skills: there's no way to prove that a skill is backroute-prone without first demonstrating it to be so in such a way that is non-fixable.

No, that's a non-sequitur. A skill being backroute-prone is an issue even if the backroutes are ultimately fixable, because backroute-fixing is already time-intensive, both on the part of the designer and that of testers, and we would like to keep that under control as much as possible. Also, backroute-fixing often leads to other problems, either aesthetic or giving the player signposts to the correct solution.

Regarding the Grenader specifically, I've already made my suggestion for how to rein it in: give it a shorter arc so you can't destroy terrain at point X from halfway across the level. I would apply this to the Spearer as well. My preliminary suggestion is that the height should remain the same and the width should be roughly 3/4 of what it currently is, but if we got the chance to try that out I might end up suggesting further tweaks; it's also possible we should have different-sized arcs for the two skills.

However, I don't think it's a huge problem and I would be happy with the Grenader and Spearer as skills if we got them in their current versions.

[WillLem]

No, that's a non-sequitur.

Yeah, I can be prone to those. Unicorns are awesome; I am awesome, therefore I am a unicorn

A skill being backroute-prone is an issue even if the backroutes are ultimately fixable, because backroute-fixing is already time-intensive... and we would like to keep that under control as much as possible. Also, backroute-fixing often leads to other problems, either aesthetic or giving the player signposts to the correct solution.

Fair point, I can see why it's an issue now. I just don't want to not have the skill just because it might cause backroutes. I personally don't really mind backroutes, I quite enjoy seeing people's ingenuity in finding a solution that's unintended, and it can often lead to interesting talismans or memorable levels with infamous shortcuts. So, skills that lend themselves to those sorts of situations are OK in the Book of WillLem

However, I don't think it's a huge problem and I would be happy with the Grenader and Spearer as skills if we got them in their current versions.

Agreed. Although, if tweaking them slightly is what's needed to keep them in the roster, then that's fine too - bring it on!

[Strato Incendus]

Regarding the Grenader specifically, I've already made my suggestion for how to rein it in: give it a shorter arc so you can't destroy terrain at point X from halfway across the level. I would apply this to the Spearer as well. My preliminary suggestion is that the height should remain the same and the width should be roughly 3/4 of what it currently is, but if we got the chance to try that out I might end up suggesting further tweaks; it's also possible we should have different-sized arcs for the two skills.

Shortening the range does something, but it also has at least two side effects:
- if the Spearer is affected by the range change as well, it will become significantly weaker (and I don't currently consider the Spearer overpowered)
- shortening the range of the Grenader still doesn't prevent the player from using it in one of its most backrouty applications, imho: walking up to a one-way wall from the opposing side (like a regular Bomber) and then going straight through it, since a) the crater is bigger and b) no lemming dies, so it can't be stopped by adjusting the save requirement (and also, with several grenaders, the same lemming can do it several times in a row)

However, I don't think it's a huge problem and I would be happy with the Grenader and Spearer as skills if we got them in their current versions.

Yes, me too. I'm probably just extra-cautious at the moment, because people kept backrouting my level "Nemesis" from Lemmings Open Air with Bombers alone already - and that wasn't even a particularly thin one-way wall.

In one of my own Grenader levels, "Thus spoke Zarathustra", I had to resort to making the Grenader a pickup skill and placing it on the other side of the one-way wall in order to prevent such shortcuts.

[WillLem]

- shortening the range of the Grenader still doesn't prevent the player from using it in one of its most backrouty applications, imho: walking up to a one-way wall from the opposing side (like a regular Bomber) and then going straight through it

This is precisely the issue that I've addressed here. TL;DR - just make the OWW thicker

[Strato Incendus]

Well, "thicker" in this case means "always thicker than the maximum area of destruction all Grenaders on the skill panel could cause when chained back-to-back this way". That can be quite thick...

Unless of course the crater is smaller than it is now .

[WillLem]

Well, "thicker" in this case means "always thicker than the maximum area of destruction all Grenaders on the skill panel could cause when chained back-to-back this way". That can be quite thick...

I had a feeling this would be your response. To be fair, if a level is going to feature enough Grenaders as to place a thick OWW at risk of being backrouted, then I'd be questioning whether the level needs that many Grenaders, or whether another skill could be used instead of some of them. Or, if all of the Grenaders are absolutely needed elsewhere in the solution, then the player can't use them to break through the OWW anyway.

Again - any skill is backroute prone in large enough quantities. Most (i.e. not all) of the difficult, one-solution-only puzzles (that I've encountered so far) tend to give no more than about 3 of each skill. Any more than that, and the level starts to become more and more open ended anyway.

[Strato Incendus]

Those statements are true, but these are existence claims (any skill is prone to backroutes in large quantities) that disguise this quantitative difference.

A singular Stoner can cause backroutes in the wrong position by simply creating a new position in thin air from which to build or platform - but that requires those other skills to interact with the Stoner. In a level e.g. without any or with just a few other creative skills, a Stoner can do much less damage. You'd have to rely on Stoner staircases then, which are very inefficient in covering both vertical and horizontal distances, cost lots of lemming lives, and indeed require a high quantity of Stoners (say, usually 10 and above) to be an option anyway.

I'm picking the Stoner for comparison here because it's one of the most backrout-y other skills.

For the Grenader, in contrast, with the current large crater, a "high quantity of Grenaders" can mean as little as 2 or 3.

[Dullstar]

I don't think an alteration to the crater size to make it smaller would be too much of a nerf. It would require less padding of one-way walls in the situation Strato is talking about, while still maintaining nearly all of the utility - if you're just trying to get through a wall, there's other skills that would probably be better choices, as let's be honest, the level where you blow up the sand castle in Lemmings 2 is not very interesting, and with NeoLemmix's focus on removing as much execution difficulty as possible any comparable levels would be even less interesting. The interactions are more dependent on the shape of the crater than its size.

[Strato Incendus]

Thanks, Dullstar, I couldn't have said it better! The main interactions I was looking forward to with regards to the Grenader were indeed denting the ceiling to stop Shimmiers and denting walls to break falls from above or create niches for Climbers to go into to do other stuff from there (bash into the wall, build out of it etc.).

Sure, throwing a grenade into the side of a wall, removing a big chunk that frees a Blocker, that is fun - but even that should still be possible with a smaller crater. The Blocker just needs to be placed a little closer to the edge of the wall, instead of the grenade removing half the wall.

[WillLem]

For the Grenader, in contrast, with the current large crater, a "high quantity of Grenaders" can mean as little as 2 or 3.

So far, I have created a level which demonstrates that Grenaders + OWW = Not A Problem.

If you can create a level which requires a sufficient enough quantity of Grenaders to be used, in such a way that the level could be backrouted if they were instead used on a OWW, then I'll be happy to concede the point. Until then, we're essentially discussing some hypothetical level situation which doesn't even exist and, to be honest, is quite difficult to imagine.

We have the luxury of an experimental for testing these skills - prove your point!

[Strato Incendus]

So far, I have created a level which demonstrates that Grenaders + OWW = Not A Problem.

This one level that you keep pointing back at doesn't prove that "Grenaders + OWW = Not A Problem", for several reasons:

a) You only used a single Grenader, i.e. the minimum amount, not 2 or 3 as I stated in my post - which would be the minimum required to make statements about several Grenaders in one level
b) Consequently, the example you used to demonstrate the backroute used a stripe of terrain so thin that the backroute could already have been achieved with a regular Bomber. The issue of the difference in crater size is therefore being left out.
c) Even if a) and b) weren't present and your level were indeed a perfect example of a level where a given number of several Grenaders doesn't create a backroute through the one-way arrows, it would still be just that: A single example. Not a proof that this is not an issue in general.

If you can create a level which requires a sufficient enough quantity of Grenaders to be used, in such a way that the level could be backrouted if they were instead used on a OWW, then I'll be happy to concede the point. Until then, we're essentially discussing some hypothetical level situation which doesn't even exist and, to be honest, is quite difficult to imagine.

We have the luxury of an experimental for testing these skills - prove your point!

In fact, I have already made such a level, the one called "Pictures at an exhibition": If the Grenader weren't a pickup skill (and pickup skills are the absolute last resort to fix backroutes, even after one-way arrows, because they usually give away even more about the solution), one could simply go straight through the one-way wall next to the hatch and skip the entire beginning part. I will grant though that this particular level is not an optimal example, because the Grenader is indeed the skill which you're supposed to use to get through that wall - just from the other side. This particular solution is therefore something that we will never be able to enforce about the Grenader.

But to accept your "challenge", I've created a second level containing four Grenaders, each of which is supposed to go into a different spot. However, they can also be used to go straight through the wall. And I can't really make the wall thicker, because then it blocks the position from which the lemming needs to throw the first grenade in the intended solution.

In fact, I've even found a second Grenader backroute that is even harder to fix, because it's independent of the thickness of the wall. (And the intended solution actually requires the pioneer to throw a grenade over said wall, which is another reason why I can't make it too thick.)


Boom! Beer Me