[DISC] The Backroute Debate

[WillLem]

Let's start by defining a backroute, for those who may not fully understand what it is.

A backroute is commonly understood as "any solution which bypasses the designer's intended solution." There is a grey area, because sometimes such solutions may be just as ingenious as the intended one, and can therefore be accepted as an "alternative solution" rather than a backroute.

A backroute, more distinctly, is a solution which is generally undesirable from the point of view of the designer (and, sometimes, even the player). It completely unhinges the level, either by taking a ridiculously simple route that the designer missed, or by not "getting the trick" of the level and instead using the skills to craft a more conventional solution. In the worst cases, they rely on glitches, are ridiculously fiddly and are usually only possible on game engines which allow fine control and/or exploitation of broken game mechanics.

As far as the latter goes, the game engine should indeed be as glitch-free as possible - but not for the purposes of backroute prevention. The goal here should simply be in-world consistency; if a game has created a set of rules, its mechanics should of course adhere to those rules in all possible cases, in order to create a world that level designers and players can understand and interact with on equal terms.

Beyond this, I'd like to take issue with the ongoing notion that "the engine itself should be preventing possible backroutes" because it comes up very often in debates and is a go-to reason that can potentially derail many otherwise good ideas (such as new skills, or skill behaviours) if given too much weight.

Preventing backroutes is the job of the level designer, not the game engine.

Ideally, the game engine should provide as many options as is possible, limited only by imagination and preference, and it is then up to the level designers to construct levels within that world.

The very act of designing a level is itself a challenge to other players. You're saying "there - beat that!" If the player then solves the level with an unintended solution (or, indeed, a "backroute"), they have beaten the designer, who must then either accept the solution, or fix the level. Under no circumstances should the game engine be necessarily helping or hindering the designer or player in this process - ideally, it should be an entirely neutral entity in the equation.

Backroutes are also an invaluable resource for alternative solutions, challenge solutions, interesting level statistics, and can even provide ways to find completely new tricks, which can then form the basis of other levels (which, if not carefully designed, will then likely have backroutes of their own!) In short, they are not necessarily a bad thing.

They exist as linchpins to learning and progress; however, this learning and progress should ideally all be happening after the fact of the game's creation, informing designers and players of fresh possibilities. They should not retroactively inform the design of the game itself, other than in obvious cases where it exposes an actual flaw with the game, e.g. destructable steel.

We love to hate backroutes. They frustrate us as designers but encourage us as players. And, as long as the game is fairly designed, they are inevitable. Seeking to design the game to rule them out is both futile and self-destructive as it removes an invaluable part of the player/designer equation. They ought to be celebrated rather than maligned and avoided, because they inform future design within the world in which they were created.

I anticipate that not many people will agree with this, but that's exactly why it needs to be said.

[IchoTolot]

Enabling backroutes is not a main reason for inclusion/not including features, but it still must be one of many reasons.

If a feature makes a level hard to design it will be used less or even avoided.


Example: Builder + platformer.

I am not in any way doubting the inclusion or viability of any of the two skills here!

The builder is one of the corner stones of lemmings and in classic the only way to get over gaps. It is very vulnarable to backroutes though and was famous back in the days for being the biggest cause for backroutes. As a result the number of builders in more complex levels needed to be reduced as much as possible.

Ever since the platformer with its limitations got introduced I often find myself using platformers instead of builders because I know that if I used a builder I would have to deal with certain backroutes and the fixes could be ugly.


More extreme cases would be the stoner and the walker. They are extremely useful and therefore a very good addition to NL.

But they are so useful that you often have to resort to drastic fixes like pick-ups to prevent them from breaking the level.

They are very hard to design backroute free levels with and making the progress of design hard can lead to lower usage of the features as their inclusion would lead to a broken level. So you may end up replacing them with other features.

Still, they offer so much in terms of gameplay that the hassle is worth it!


The backroute affinity was also one nail in the coffin of the grenader. Being able to assign it nearly anywhere and make the crater in a ton of different locations can easily break levels.



Again it should not be a main reason, but a supporting one. If an addition makes the game hard to design levels with then it can bring down the value of the feature and new features only come to life through new design.


This leads me to my final conclusion:

Preventing backroutes is the job of the level designer, yes, but it is also not the job of the engine to include tons of backroute heaven feature which are very hard to design levels with after. Then they might not be very great features after all.

As NL is mainly an engine for custom content. Accessability in gameplay and level design must be considered and the engine should help both: Players and designers.

You're saying "there - beat that!" If the player then solves the level with an unintended solution (or, indeed, a "backroute"), they have beaten the designer, who must then either accept the solution, or fix the level.

A level is beaten when it is either solved with an intended/acceptable solution, or the level ends up unfixable. Otherwise a backroute is just a temporary bug and the level is still not beaten.

I will never say a player has beaten United, for example, if he just backroutes half of the levels and does not resolve them.

They are not a bad thing, in contrast, they identify faults and may lead to new machanics. They are an important part!

[mantha16]

as annoying as it can be when someone solves my level not using my intended solution I rarely address backroutes and change levels unless I really hate the alternative solution because i think of it as the ingenuity of the player.  its why I prefer people to not necessarily post replays to my packs soon after I release it as I'd like to give players as much time as possible to find the solution or their solution.

There are of course exceptions to this but I would say im the least likely to be bothered by backroutes

[WillLem]

But they are so useful that you often have to resort to drastic fixes like pick-ups to prevent them from breaking the level.

Agreed.

I used pickup skills a lot in Lemminas because I enjoyed the novelty of them. However, I've grown to dislike them as a result of encountering them in other people's levels. Now, if ever I feel the need to use a pickup to fix a backroute, I either accept the backroute or ditch the level. I find it's a good barometer for whether or not a level's solution is even worth enforcing if it requires the use of pickup skills!

The backroute affinity was also one nail in the coffin of the grenader. Being able to assign it nearly anywhere and make the crater in a ton of different locations can easily break levels.

So, don't use them in your levels. Group-of-users X shouldn't also be prevented from using them because Group-of-users Y are concerned that they may cause backroutes. This goes for all skills and features, not just the Grenader; but - yes, I was particularly disappointed that it proved to be a compelling enough argument against its inclusion in NeoLemmix.

Again it should not be a main reason, but a supporting one. If an addition makes the game hard to design levels with then it can bring down the value of the feature and new features only come to life through new design.

Agreed. Testing features before using them is of course vital, and if they prove to be problematic for design purposes, then it is absolutely a factor. However, I still think that a skilled designer should not be concerned about whether a feature will potentially break their future levels which don't even exist yet. If anything, they would relish the challenge to create levels which stand up against the new features!

Preventing backroutes is the job of the level designer, yes, but it is also not the job of the engine to include tons of backroute heaven feature which are very hard to design levels with after.

You are one of the most skilled level designers on the forums, so I'm baffled as to why you worry so much about backroutes. If you have the ability to design levels to the high degree of ingenuity and complexity that many of yours achieve, then backroute-proofing ought to be the least of your concerns.

A level is beaten when it is either solved with an intended/acceptable solution, or the level ends up unfixable. Otherwise a backroute is just a temporary bug and the level is still not beaten.

OK, I can concede that a level is not truly beaten if backrouted, however it highlights a weakness in the level's design and is therefore an important part of the design process - we appear to agree on this

Where we go from there is, hopefully, to begin to do away with the notion that backroutes are a great catastophe which must be avoided at all costs. In a way, they form part of the authorship of a level, since every backroute contributes to an update in the design.

My conclusion is that they aren't anything to be concerned about, and therefore should not automatically be thought of as a "potential negative" when discussing a new feature. If anything, we have more to learn from backroute-prone skills and features, and - as you yourself have pointed out - the more backroute-prone a feature is, the more useful it proves to be!

[IchoTolot]

So, don't use them in your levels.

Others will and it will result in a backroute rampage from my side.

Again, it's just one minor argument. In the case of the grenader it was also the glitch/bug/edge case problem which was major.

You are one of the most skilled level designers on the forums, so I'm baffled as to why you worry so much about backroutes. If you have the ability to design levels to the high degree of ingenuity and complexity that many of yours achieve, then backroute-proofing ought to be the least of your concerns.

That's exactly why I worry so much.

Do you know how often I go through a new level inside my head and the editor before releasing 1.0? It depends on the levels, but still hours can be sunk into it.

Do you know how many versions some levels still need after that? A lot, in a few cases more than a dozen.

They are a concern and a blessing. You don't want them being present, but finding one eliminates an error.

Optimaly, you don't want the error to be there in the first place. There good game design can help.

[WillLem]

Others will and it will result in a backroute rampage from my side.

In the case of the grenader it was also the glitch/bug/edge case problem which was major.

I realise that. And, to be fair, I do think it was ultimately the correct decision. Both of the ranged skills were extremely fiddly to use and I can imagine puzzles involving them being a nightmare to try and solve. Great ideas, though, and the Grenader in particular was heaps of fun. I think both of the skills were good for "large quantities, go nuts" levels, but not so much for puzzle levels, which is ultimately what NL generally promotes.

Do you know how often I go through a new level inside my head and the editor before releasing 1.0? It depends on the levels, but still hours can be sunk into it.

Do you know how many versions some levels still need after that? A lot, in a few cases more than a dozen.

They are a concern and a blessing. You don't want them being present, but finding one eliminates an error.

Optimaly, you don't want the error to be there in the first place. There good game design can help.

Hmm. I guess I didn't think of it that way.

Of course, a well designed game is a friend to everyone. I do still think that "is it good design?" and "will it create backroutes?" are two very different and necessarily exclusive questions*, although they can both be asked about the same feature, of course.

*To clarify this: it's possible for a feature to be poor design, but not backroute-prone. It's also possible for a feature to be great design, and also very backroute-prone (the Builder being an obvious example).

We can agree that the worst of all cases is something which is both poor design and backroute-prone. However, if it's poor design then it's unlikely to make it into the game in any case. The best of all cases is "good design, and not backroute-prone" but, I'd argue that this is quite rare. In fact, I'm struggling to think of an example!

[Dullstar]

My recent contest levels aren't difficult. The reason they aren't difficult is because I was unable to patch the backroutes.

The intended solution on R3 is probably the hardest I've ever created, but I haven't been able to come up with a way to enforce it over easier solutions.

The R1 level also has an intended trick, and while several people have submitted replays with various skill saves, I haven't seen the core trick in any of them (the level name actually has some meaning to it) (although, disclaimer, after I gave up on it I stopped checking the incoming replays, so it's not impossible that someone might have gotten it since then).

I've basically given up on patching these. R3 wasn't something I could easily fix, and it received a little positive attention, so I just decided to initially focus on dealing with the R1 level. But on that one, it seemed like every time I'd release an update, I'd get 3 different backroutes, attempt to patch them, and the patch would completely fail to remove even a single one, because the original backrouter would always find a slight modification that made it work again. I'd at least want to get new backroutes and not just the same ones again.

The backroutes make these levels significantly easier than was intended in the initial design.

Personally, I think if I were ever to create a full pack, I'd probably have to have someone help me with the backroute patching (not just the testing, but the patching too), because I'm not very good at it. Otherwise, it'd be full of mediocre easy levels, while I'd want the pack as a whole to have something to offer both new and experienced players. But if I can't remove the backroutes from the harder levels, then the pack won't really have anything to offer experienced players.

[mantha16]

see thats what i have an issue with more than backroutes is the derth of easy levels.  I see everyone agreeing that we need more easy packs for the less skilled (like me) and for newer players but most praise seems to be heaped on the most difficult designs.  so I think Dullstar i wouldnt let backroute fear putting you off designing a pack, Id like to see what you came up with.

[ericderkovits]

Yeah, I don't think there are enough easy packs out there. We definitely need more. Especially for me, since I'm the worst puzzle solver out there.


Also don't worry about the backroutes for Rule 1. It's harder to patch them since Rule 1 doesn't allow pickup skills. Also my rule 1 level needed about 4 updates, since nobody was using all the skills (mainly the blockers) so I had to reduce the builder count and make small other patches to get the intended solution. Although the level still is quite ugly with the water. It's only in the level for backroute prevention otherwise I would remove it.


Backroutes will always be a thing with lemmings. It's just the nature of the game. Many times it may take several patches to get the intended solution.
I even had to fix my own Rule 1 level even before version 1, since I backrouted it several times. That's why there is so much steel in the level. And even after I thought I patched it for the contest, it still needed 4 updates.

And as far as Backroutes, I don't want them in my levels. I don't mind variances though, as long as the intended tricks are there.
And I don't like backrouting other peoples levels either. Example is Colorful Arty's Artlems Modernist 6. In version 1, I backrouted it so badly, I hated my own solution to it.
And even though Artlems is at Version 1.3 that same level is still backroutable. But I was so frustrated at it, I wanted to solve it by getting every single pickup skill. Even though that still might not be the intended solution, at least I'm satisfied solving the level by getting every pickup skill(although not necessary).

[Dullstar]

Definitely there aren't enough easy levels, and I definitely intend on including some in said pack, and not just an obligatory pity-easy-level rank either.

But I also want the levels that I designed to be hard to actually be hard, too. It's frustrating when I come up with a creative difficult solution, but just can't get it to work because of backroutes, because the hard levels are just harder to come up with, I think.

[WillLem]

Personally, I think if I were ever to create a full pack, I'd probably have to have someone help me with the backroute patching (not just the testing, but the patching too), because I'm not very good at it... if I can't remove the backroutes from the harder levels, then the pack won't really have anything to offer experienced players.

I'm sure most of us can empathise with this; it can be very discouraging to create an ingenious level only to find that it is very easily backroutable, and not so easily patched. You're definitely not alone there.

There's absolutely no shame in asking for help, either. I'm generally pretty good at patching backroutes when I put my mind to it, and when it's worth doing so. In the majority of cases, a solution is either far too complex and obscure to actually deserve a fix, or the level ends up being better off with the backroute as a possibility.

[mantha16]

i think if you have a wide range of knowledge of the tricks available hard levels are much easier to create than you think.  At least thats what everyone tells me