[DISC][PLAYER] Potential new object - Bombproof wall

[Dullstar]

As it stands now I agree with Simon's points and have voted accordingly:

Why does NL need this? What problems does it solve? What levels are hard to backroute-proof without this?

This really feels like 1-2 designers came up with 2-3 levels that weren't so easy to fix the backroutes without bombproof wall. If it kills 2-3 level ideas, that's fine if you can't lower the cost in unintuitiveness.

I could still be convinced otherwise, but I'd really need to see (like, with pictures) a variety of ideas that absolutely need this object to work in order to convince me that the design potential would outweigh the added complexity.

[WillLem]

It exists in the form of making a wall too large for a bomber to get through

I disagree that this is a satisfactory workaround/simulation. The terrain can still be destroyed by the Bomber in this case, and therefore is not the same as the terrain not being Bomber-destructible. Whatever the in-level consequences are of this, the fact remains that the two cases are different.

[Proxima]

While that is technically true, the fact remains that if you want an area of terrain to be non-bombable, all you have to do is make it too thick for the number of bombers the player can afford to use, whether that means changing the terrain, lowering the number of bombers available, or increasing the save requirement.

(There is one exceptional case, where terrain being bombable is a problem because a bomber could dent it rather than breaking all the way through it -- for instance, making a dent where a climber can stop climbing and build out. However, if that would create a backroute, in most cases steel or a flamethrower etc. would be sufficient to prevent it.)

NL already has a glut of features, and if we are going to add yet more, we should restrict it to ones that really bring something new to the table and open the way to genuinely new puzzle ideas.

[namida]

The terrain can still be destroyed by the Bomber in this case, and therefore is not the same as the terrain not being Bomber-destructible. Whatever the in-level consequences are of this, the fact remains that the two cases are different.

What does this offer in terms of design potential that other options do not?

[WillLem]

terrain being bombable is a problem because a bomber could dent it rather than breaking all the way through it

Yes, exactly. As well as Climbers being affected (and being able to affect the wall by assigning a Bomber to the Climber), Sliders are affected as well.

Not to mention the various other possibilities of a partially dented wall (can be used as a way to gain height, can be used as a starting point for further destruction of the wall, etc).

NL already has a glut of features, and if we are going to add yet more, we should restrict it to ones that really bring something new to the table and open the way to genuinely new puzzle ideas.

What does this offer in terms of design potential that other options do not?

I've not done much level designing recently as I'm experiencing a period of creative block so I'm perhaps not the best person to address this at present

My instinct is that if an idea is novel enough to be considered "something which does not yet exist in the game, nor can be adequetely worked-around or simulated", then it likely does have potential. Apologies I can't really do better than that at the mo!

@Strato - you suggested this idea, any thoughts?

[Dullstar]

It is true that bombers can dent walls, but as has been mentioned steel can already prevent this. You'd need a situation where a destructive skill must be able to get through a wall (which would prevent steel from working), and a bomber denting the wall would create problems, and the use of the bomber to do this can't be prevented by requiring the bomber to be used somewhere else.

[WillLem]

You'd need a situation where a destructive skill must be able to get through a wall (which would prevent steel from working), and a bomber denting the wall would create problems, and the use of the bomber to do this can't be prevented by requiring the bomber to be used somewhere else.

Hmm. When you put it like that, I guess it is a daft idea

I'm sure better minds than mine could create such scenarios, though

[namida]

Hmm. When you put it like that, I guess it is a daft idea

There's a difference between it being a daft idea, and it not holding up under tight scrutiny. If it seemed dumb even on the surface, this topic wouldn't be here, it would've gone straight to the reject bin.

[WillLem]

There's a difference between it being a daft idea, and it not holding up under tight scrutiny. If it seemed dumb even on the surface, this topic wouldn't be here, it would've gone straight to the reject bin.

Fair enough

In that case, the strongest argument I can think of to include bombproof walls is that they're a reasonable addition to the one-way wall group of objects (in that they disallow at least one type of destructive skill, whilst allowing at least one other destructive skill).

Really, the only reason I can think of to not include it is because the Bomber is a sacrificial skill, and so needs to have some additional power when compared to the non-sacrificial destructive skills. But this is more from a 'general gameplay' point of view as opposed to thinking about any specific level design scenarios.

I always find it difficult to discuss these things hypothetically to be honest! If the idea seems good and it wouldn't take too much effort to implement, then it should be trialled. It's easier to get an idea of how useful (or not) an idea is when you can get hands-on with it, and it's great that we've had the opportunity to do this with many ideas previously

[Dullstar]

Fortunately, conceptually this idea is quite simple - you could mostly try it out without the object actually being implemented with a simple "please don't bomb this wall" graphic*. If it offers potential when players are acknowledging it by choice, then the actual object enforcing it could be made. It also would allow people to look at some of the concepts with it and see if it's possible to enforce the core design of the level without having access to the actual object.

*One case wouldn't work, where the bomber must be used somewhere that's overlapping some bombable and some nonbombable terrain, the non-bombable terrain of which would need to be destroyed with a different destructive skill (if it doesn't need to be destroyed at all, steel is an option).

[WillLem]

Fortunately, conceptually this idea is quite simple - you could mostly try it out without the object actually being implemented with a simple "please don't bomb this wall" graphic*

Good idea

[namida]

Okay so ultimately, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of people who've voted that they see use for this; the arguments are not particularly persuasive; and no good answer has been proposed to the discussion around visuals.

Between all of these factors, I am at this point going to reject this suggestion. Note that this doesn't mean it wasn't worth bringing up - just that it didn't make the cut.