[SUG][PLAYER] Object Suggestion: Vortex

[namida]

Meh... this seems like too much of a "workaround" solution. I mean, yes, it works, but it just means more stuff on the screen. Good shout for if the Vortex gets rejected as an idea, though!

Also, the workaround would fall apart if a lemming is falling into an exit from splat height - fall distance is carried over when going through a teleporter.

[WillLem]

Meh... this seems like too much of a "workaround" solution. I mean, yes, it works, but it just means more stuff on the screen.

Also, the workaround would fall apart if a lemming is falling into an exit from splat height - fall distance is carried over when going through a teleporter.

Yes, exactly. So you'd need an updraft as well in that scenario. Eeesh!

Vortex FTW!

[Strato Incendus]

Also, the workaround would fall apart if a lemming is falling into an exit from splat height - fall distance is carried over when going through a teleporter.

I know - you're talking to the person who made the Pit Lems levels "The long way down" and "Controlled overload", after all, which made excessive use of this part of the game physics...

Yes, exactly. So you'd need an updraft as well in that scenario. Eeesh!

...and in turn, this would have been exactly my suggestion on how to handle this problem, and I knew nobody would figure this out more quickly than WillLem himself!

After all, nobody has used updrafts on exit triggers more frequently than him, as far as I know. In fact, hard-to-see updrafts in front of exits were something I myself had criticised about Lemminas, even though these updrafts were actually set to "overwrite" to display layered on top of the exit, so not really "invisible", just hard to spot against the background of the exit object itself.



That said, you could also use an anti-splat pad on the exit, too. Since for this application, terrain would be required within the exit trigger area anyway.

And I think the anti-splat pad in this context is a great example to illustrate the large overlap (and thus redundancy) between regular exits and the proposed vortex:
The difference only matters in very few cases.

With anti-splat pads, the fact that you could place them in the air somewhere with no terrain inside, so that lemmings could fall through them without having their fall height reset like from an updraft was a crucial enough difference in my book, alongside anti-splat pads having existed before and being the logical counterpart to splat pads.

Vortices however would be an entirely new object, while basically just being a subtype of exit (like locked / non-locked exits). At this point it seems to me like regarding teleporters, Arty's super-teleporter, and the future prospect of portals as three different types of objects. Or like the non-lethal Stoners and Bombers you proposed a long time ago.

[Proxima]

Also, the workaround would fall apart if a lemming is falling into an exit from splat height - fall distance is carried over when going through a teleporter.

Yes, but do portals necessarily have to behave like teleporters?

On the one hand, I get the consistency argument -- if they behave alike (except for teleporters having the one-lemming-at-a-time behaviour) then there is less for a new player to learn. On the other hand, one argument for portals is that we can't remove one-at-a-time teleporters without breaking a ton of levels, so let's make a fresh start with a new object, and make portals into what teleporters should always have been.

From that point of view, I would definitely say let's get rid of the silly skills-continuing-through-teleporter behaviour and have the lemming pop out as if he'd just spawned. I'm not dead set that fall distance should also be reset, but it makes sense that it should.

[WillLem]

That said, you could also use an anti-splat pad on the exit, too.

Or, you could have a Vortex! Thus removing the need for a messy combination of teleporters/portals, updrafts and/or anti-splat pads to simulate the behaviour in question.

Having said that - since those other object types already exist, I can see why you think that this new object type may be somewhat redundant. However, simplicity is one of the factors in this whole equation, and the Vortex addresses that very directly.

Vortices however would ... basically just being a subtype of exit (like locked / non-locked exits)

Not so. They would actually be a much more powerful type of exit, allowing any lemming that comes into contact with its trigger to exit the level. They would also exist in counterpoint to the proposed removal of Floaters, Gliders, Reachers and Jumpers from the list of states that are currently exitable from regular exits.



Should Vortexes be lockable and/or limitable? This is an important question since the object could potentially be used to fix broken levels.

[Dullstar]

Also, the workaround would fall apart if a lemming is falling into an exit from splat height - fall distance is carried over when going through a teleporter.

Yes, but do portals necessarily have to behave like teleporters?

On the one hand, I get the consistency argument -- if they behave alike (except for teleporters having the one-lemming-at-a-time behaviour) then there is less for a new player to learn. On the other hand, one argument for portals is that we can't remove one-at-a-time teleporters without breaking a ton of levels, so let's make a fresh start with a new object, and make portals into what teleporters should always have been.

From that point of view, I would definitely say let's get rid of the silly skills-continuing-through-teleporter behaviour and have the lemming pop out as if he'd just spawned. I'm not dead set that fall distance should also be reset, but it makes sense that it should.

On this topic, I think that portals should probably retain this behavior. I think the just spawned behavior is more intuitive, personally, but I don't think we should introduce that as an inconsistency - particularly because if there *was* an inconsistency, I would expect the *portal* to allow lemmings to continue and the *teleporter* not to, instead of the other way around.



Similarly, I think it's likely people will want the locked/limited vortex exits; let's just go ahead and include those too. If the object is supposed to be just like an exit, but with different rules about who can use the exit, let's give it all the same features, too. It seems a bit odd to have a choice between [an exit that is capable of locking, but has limitations as to who can exit], or [an exit that cannot lock, but has no limitations as to who can exit].



We may also wish to consider if, if we add this object, should OhNoers still be allowed to use the regular exits?

[IchoTolot]

and make portals into what teleporters should always have been.

Let's say that is highly biased. I still think teleporters should only be able to handle 1 guest at a time. It depends on the viewpoint.

We may also wish to consider if, if we add this object, should OhNoers still be allowed to use the regular exits?

Of course.

They are alive, and if they stand on solid ground they should exit. Otherwise you have another big inconsistancy. They do not abuse any midair extra rule and therefore don't even fall into the special cases the vortex should cover!

Blockers can exit, builders can exit, etc and so should bombers/stoners before they reach their final destination.

The fact that they are still alive is proven as they retain blocker attributes after bombing a blocker and can still fall in that state.

Also, the fact that you suddenly the need to include vortexes even on ground level as normal walkers also need to exit in quite a few nuke solutions would give away the well hidden solution immediately ruining the solution in the progress. Again, vortexes shall cover the mid air exiting mechanics and nuke solutions don't fall into that category at all!

The best nuke levels often hide the nuke solution in plain sight!

[WillLem]

I think that portals should probably retain this behavior. I think the just spawned behavior is more intuitive, personally, but I don't think we should introduce that as an inconsistency - particularly because if there *was* an inconsistency, I would expect the *portal* to allow lemmings to continue and the *teleporter* not to, instead of the other way around.

I agree, but I also see the benefit in having a teleporter object with "reset" properties. Portals should reset.

Similarly, I think it's likely people will want the locked/limited vortex exits; let's just go ahead and include those too. If the object is supposed to be just like an exit, but with different rules about who can use the exit, let's give it all the same features, too.

Agreed; I've come around to being in favour of this. +1

We may also wish to consider if, if we add this object, should OhNoers still be allowed to use the regular exits?

Yes, they should. They're standing on ground, are technically still alive, and can drop (as opposed to the other "dying" animations, which are all stationary).

The only thing I would add to this is that Drowners should be able to use regular exits for pretty much the same reasons (the fact that they can be assigned Swimmers displaces the absence of drop movement present in the Ohnoer).

and make portals into what teleporters should always have been.

Let's say that is highly biased. I still think teleporters should only be able to handle 1 guest at a time. It depends on the viewpoint.

I agree with Icho that it makes sense for teleporters to only allow 1 lem at a time, but I agree with Proxima that reset behaviour should also have been factored in. We now have the opportunity to do that with Portals, so why not?

[IchoTolot]

I agree with Icho that it makes sense for teleporters to only allow 1 lem at a time, but I agree with Proxima that reset behaviour should also have been factored in. We now have the opportunity to do that with Portals, so why not?

I aggree that the portal does not nessesarily be just like the teleporter. If it also sucks the lemming up it could indeed be logical that it interrupts the skill as well.

That discussion would be for the portal topic though.

The optical look for portals is relevant here due to the possible overlap with Vortexes.

[namida]

The only thing I would add to this is that Drowners should be able to use regular exits for pretty much the same reasons (the fact that they can be assigned Swimmers displaces the absence of drop movement present in the Ohnoer).

They're not on terrain. Swimmers I can see as a special case, because the Swimmer skill essentially turns water into terrain (albeit terrain with some unusual properties) for that individual lemming. Drowners are just a death animation that can be last-minute-saved. In particular, a lemming that is drowning with no ability to swim cannot move himself into the exit.

It is possible to have a case where the pixel where the drowner's "pin" is, is all three of exit, water and solid terrain. I believe this edge case should be handled with a special rule so that the behavior a drowner would have in a "normal" setup remains the case. Of course, in any situation where a drowning lemming in front of an exit is assigned a Swimmer, I would say he should then immediately exit.

[WillLem]

What do people think of this as a possible "more-exit-looking" version of the Vortex?



Does the swirling need to be made clearer? Should they be strictly mid-air only, and thus building-based design for Vortexes be discouraged?

Just looking to re-open this discussion a bit because it sort of got side-tracked onto Portals for a few posts and then fizzled off just as it was gathering momentum.

Full disclosure: I'm probably about 50/50 as far as the Vortex idea is concerned. I initially suggested it as sort of an ironic joke because I felt that the rules around regular exits were in danger of becoming far too restrictive, but if people really do like the idea of Vortexes (and, more to the point, if people want to tighten the rules up around regular exits) then it's worth getting some ideas together.

In particular, it would be useful to know your thoughts on it, @namida, since you're clearly looking at wrapping NL up and these ideas feel possibly a bit too much too late. Some ressurance either way on it would go a long way at this point.

[namida]

In particular, it would be useful to know your thoughts on it, @namida, since you're clearly looking at wrapping NL up and these ideas feel possibly a bit too much too late. Some ressurance either way on it would go a long way at this point.

I haven't been paying too much thought to it, as I'm in one of those "limited interest in NL" phases at the moment and I don't see this being a next-version matter at any rate; it's more likely to be a matter for 12.13. I'm not against the idea (otherwise I'd have shot it down), but I'm not super-convinced.

One thing I did note was the portal-antisplat-exit workaround. I think this workaround is strong enough - considering that levels actually needing it aren't likely to be super common - that we cannot consider the vortex in isolation from the portal. There are setups I can think of where the workaround wouldn't quite cut it. All such setups involve a locked and/or limited-count exit, so I think this gives a heavy lean towards vortexes needing those features too - without them, every possible vortex setup could be replicated with existing object types plus portals.

Even then though - I have to ask whether those cases would come up often enough to justify an additional object type that, outside of those cases, at best helps obscure certain solutions - keeping in mind that many cases that would use a vortex, it would be obvious that you fall / jump / etc into it even if a vortex (or regular exit, if physics were to allow that to work) were placed in the same spot, not every case of using this is obscure (the difficulty may come from "how do you get there with the needed skill left over?" or something like that).

Put it this way - I'm not saying it's an outright "reject it", but especially if portals make the cut - which I think is likely - I would consider vortexes to be a pretty weak contender. On the other hand, if portals don't make the cut, vortexes suddenly become - if not a strong contender, at least a reasonable one.

[Proxima]

What do people think of this as a possible "more-exit-looking" version of the Vortex?

I think it's too confusing for new players, who will just see an exit. A clear visual distinction makes it much clearer that it's a new type of object; and since the distinction from exits would be specifically that they work in mid-air, the grounded "building" graphic obscures that. After all, someone jumping past the front door of a building does not typically find themselves inside!

[WillLem]

I think it's too confusing for new players, who will just see an exit.

There is no way to prove or disprove this.

A clear visual distinction makes it much clearer that it's a new type of object; and since the distinction from exits would be specifically that they work in mid-air, the grounded "building" graphic obscures that.

True; I agree to some extent. However, I think limiting the object in this way weakens the idea somewhat, pushing it more towards "let's just use Portals and regular exits to simulate the desired behaviour".

After all, someone jumping past the front door of a building does not typically find themselves inside!

What about someone jumping into the door, as opposed to past it? The trigger area is supposed to be a point at which the object is interacted with, not traversed.



In light of namida's response, it seems that making Vortexes lockable could be the only justification for keeping the idea afloat.

Thoughts?