[DISC][PLAYER] Midair exit rules

[WillLem]

yeah except you did post this before willem suggested the vortex but yes that is a compromise

To be fair, Icho did post this after my suggestion (hence the link). Maybe you missed it in the Forum feed.

[IchoTolot]

To be fair, Icho did post this after my suggestion (hence the link). Maybe you missed it in the Forum feed.

WillLems' suggestion was the reason I even thought of this. It made it possible in the first place. So of course I need to give credit to WillLem

[mantha16]

ok i stand corrected it must not have shown up as quickly or i happened to read ichos message first

[namida]

A vortex object would essentially be an exit but with pre-direct-drop-cull behavior.

Some concerns (my own / from Discord):
- How would it be visually different from a regular exit? Obviously styles make their own design, but what would the guideline be, especially taking into account the huge variety around what exits look like?
- Or if the idea is that it looks like an actual vortex, how would it be visually different from the proposed portal (which is a very strong contender to get into NL eventually)?
- And is this going to extend to wanting locked vortexes, or limited-lemming-count vortexes?

[WillLem]

- How would it be visually different from a regular exit? Obviously styles make their own design, but what would the guideline be, especially taking into account the huge variety around what exits look like?

Initial graphic concept.

The main thing I'd propose is that it be circular, with a circular trigger area intended to be positioned at its centre.

- Or if the idea is that it looks like an actual vortex, how would it be visually different from the proposed portal (which is a very strong contender to get into NL eventually)?

Portals could be smaller, and with no indication of what's on the other side. Vortexes should be bigger, with a "sunny meadow" (or similar) image on the other side of it, similar to a regular exit.

- And is this going to extend to wanting locked vortexes, or limited-lemming-count vortexes?

I'd currently vote no on this, as I like the idea that the Vortex should be an all-encompassing, unlimited exit type. However, discussion on this is currently being had here.

[namida]

Giving consideration only to regular exits, and not to any potential future object that may act similarly - can anyone think of a case that this would not cover:

1. A lemming cannot exit if there is no terrain at its pin position. As a special case, a swimmer can exit if there is water at its pin position, even if there is no terrain.
2. A lemming cannot exit if it is splatting, burning or drowning.

[IchoTolot]

Well, there is currently still the floater and glider case.

So if you want to formulate a rule that captures all I would epand the swimmer exception to permanent skills.

Otherwise I think it's fine.

[namida]

Well, there is currently still the floater and glider case.

So if you want to formulate a rule that captures all I would epand the swimmer exception to permanent skills.

Otherwise I think it's fine.

Ah, right. I would rather make exceptions specifically for those skills if this edge case is to be kept (and as much as I'd like to see it go at this point, I think it'd be unnecessary breakage to actually do so), as there's no reason that weird edge cases with climbers / disarmers need to be able to exit.

[WillLem]

Giving consideration only to regular exits, and not to any potential future object that may act similarly - can anyone think of a case that this would not cover:

1. A lemming cannot exit if there is no terrain at its pin position. As a special case, a swimmer can exit if there is water at its pin position, even if there is no terrain.
2. A lemming cannot exit if it is splatting, burning or drowning.

Well, there is currently still the floater and glider case.

So if you want to formulate a rule that captures all I would epand the swimmer exception to permanent skills.

I would rather make exceptions specifically for those skills if this edge case is to be kept (and as much as I'd like to see it go at this point, I think it'd be unnecessary breakage to actually do so), as there's no reason that weird edge cases with climbers / disarmers need to be able to exit.

I'm not sure I understand the initial question or the subsequent mini-discussion. If you're happy to elaborate/reword slightly I'd like to provide some input to the discussion, but I want to make sure I've understood properly what has been asked/said.

Specifically: does this mean Floater/Glider exiting will be kept or won't be kept?

Thanks

[WillLem]

OK, so Proxima has explained on Discord that

"Namida is acknowledging that it would be preferable to remove floaters being able to exit, but saying that he probably won't change it because of existing content."

namida also confirmed that

"whether or not a vortex is added will have no bearing on the exit's behavior."

With this being the case, I'm very much in favour of keeping Floater/Glider/Swimmer can all exit behaviour (i.e. regardless of terrain presence/absence). Also, if Jumper/Reacher exiting has not already been fixed, I'm still in favour of keeping that behaviour as well (ditto).

As for Vortexes, I guess they would only be desirable/necessary iff the current exiting behaviour is changed, but I'm still in favour of the idea generally.

[WillLem]

Additionally, a point raised on Discord that's worth mentioning here since it touches upon midair rules.

In response to me asking why exits shouldn't act like vortices (and therefore not require terrain beneath them):

exits are designed to look like buildings, archways etc, and not like vortices

This can be reversed. Since exits are indeed often designed to look like buildings, and therefore usually appear to have steps and/or some sort of doorway, or at the very least a solid-looking "edge", it's conceivable that these features are indeed "solid" and "land-on-able", and so shouldn't require additional terrain to be placed beneath them.

Conversely, if this isn't the case (i.e. if an exit's appearance doesn't have any bearing on their behaviour/interactability), then the original question still stands: if their aesthetic is largely irrelevant, why shouldn't they act like vortices?

[namida]

With this being the case, I'm very much in favour of keeping Floater/Glider/Swimmer can all exit behaviour (i.e. regardless of terrain presence/absence).

These will almost certianly remain as is. Although it would be good to get an idea of just how widespread breakage is; if it's pretty rare, perhaps it's better to change it. At any rate - swimmers will remain able to exit even if floaters/gliders lose that ability (which itself, probably won't happen), that part I consider to make sense (as water is like terrain to them, just with some slightly different properties).

Also, if Jumper/Reacher exiting has not already been fixed, I'm still in favour of keeping that behaviour as well (ditto).

These will not. To be clear - that is not "them being able to exit is an intended mechanic that we are debating a change to", that is "them being able to exit is a bug that will be fixed".

[Dullstar]

I'd say we should definitely look into the frequency (how often?) and severity (how difficult is to fix?) of breakage if we were to change floaters/gliders, as personally I consider them analogous to fallers, except they survive falls.

Just making up some numbers here, but if it was, say, 3 levels that were broken out of all existing levels (I suspect the true number would be higher), then it wouldn't be a severe change to clean up the rules even if the levels were very difficult to fix, while if it's very simple to fix (e.g. just needs some terrain under the exit and doesn't cause major backroute issues), then a much larger number of broken levels could be tolerated. I think we should find out this information before we commit to changing/leaving the behavior.

I also think the vortex is relevant to this discussion, as it could be a viable solution for fixing some of the broken levels, depending on how the floating exit is used in broken levels.

[WillLem]

I have only 1 level whose intended solution would be broken by Floaters not being able to exit; however, it would be impossible to fix without using a lockable vortex in place of the regular exit, and would likely need to be replaced by a new level. I really do not want to have to do this, and would consider the change very disruptive.

Besides, the behaviour extends far beyond how many levels intentionally use the mechanic as part of the solution, as it could be that challenges/contests can make use of the behaviour. This is important, since NeoLemmix is a go-to platform for challenge play as well as custom levels.

[namida]

Besides, the behaviour extends far beyond how many levels intentionally use the mechanic as part of the solution, as it could be that challenges/contests can make use of the behaviour. This is important, since NeoLemmix is a go-to platform for challenge play as well as custom levels.

I'll be sure to take that into account if NeoLemmix's target audience ever becomes challenge / contest play rather than custom levels. As it stands though, that is not what NeoLemmix is aimed at - it's merely something that, as a side effect of its primary intentions, NeoLemmix can also be used for. I consider this a strong enough argument to take challenge / contest considerations into account for UI features (hence, for example, the "show used skill counts" suggestion being accepted), but not even close to being relevant to physics.

however, it would be impossible to fix without using a lockable vortex in place of the regular exit, and would likely need to be replaced by a new level. I really do not want to have to do this, and would consider the change very disruptive.

Perhaps the setup in the attachment - or some variation thereof - would be able to fix the level? Portals, if and when they're introduced, may work better than teleporters for this.