[SUG] Allow Shimmier-to-Shimmier assignment to turn the shimmying lem around

[WillLem]

It's come up in discussion a few times that same-skill-to-same-skill assignments should turn the lem. Shimmier-to-Shimmier seems like a no-brainer, however I'd then also want Swimmer-to-Swimmer to have the same effect, and this doesn't seem right as the Swimmer is a permaskill.

Not sure what to think about this one. Should we allow Shimmiers only? Shimmiers and Swimmers? Neither? What about other skills (as it would then become reasonable for a player to assume that all same-skill-to-same-skill assignments would turn the lem around)?

[Simon]

I still believe that it's a misdesign that we can assign walker to walker to turn. We copied this from L3, but L3 offers direct control over each lemming, not indirect control as in all other Lemmings games.

If you add this to the shimmier, you'll proliferate this design. Where then to draw the line, for consistency? Do you want to assign blocker to blocker, to turn the blocker? Blockers have a direction and that turning wouldn't violate any rules. If you draw the line too restrictively, it will be hard to guess what we can and cannot assign to itself, to turn.

Compare with the cloner, which I like much better: The cloner produces a turned lemming in a natural-feeling way -- cloning must work like this to be reasonable. You can't clone blockers because that would look odd and because blockers in NL aren't allowed to overlap. You can guess (and have reasonable success) what you can and cannot clone.

Ah, and: In L3, you can assign walker to swimmer, and the swimmer will turn. This costs a swimming tool; if he has none left, he'll drown.

-- Simon

[WillLem]

I still believe that it's a misdesign that we can assign walker to walker to turn. We copied this from L3, but L3 offers direct control over each lemming, not indirect control as in all other Lemmings games.

I'm not sure what is meant by "direct control" here... then again, I haven't played much L3.

The L2 Walker also reverses the direction of a currently-walking lemming, and since SuperLemmix has somewhat un-deliberately been aligned to L2 in a few of its features (Jumpers bounce off walls, Shimmier-Climbers turn and climb instead of dropping, we also now have the Ballooner skill, etc), the existing Walker skill fits in nicely here as well.

Since walking is a "state" rather than a "skill", it seems perfectly acceptable that something should happen when the Walker skill is assigned to an already-walking lem.

With that said, it is quite an overpowered and unpredictable action, making it difficult (but not impossible) to backroute-proof. So, I can see what you mean about it being somewhat questionable from a design point of view, sure.

If you add this to the shimmier, you'll proliferate this design. Where then to draw the line, for consistency?

To be honest, I'll most likely end up leaving things as they are. As much as I personally like the idea of same-to-same skill resulting in some effect, it does become messy quite quickly. Currently, in almost all cases, same-to-same results in nothing happening at all, which is predictable and consistent and therefore desirable.

Ah, and: In L3, you can assign walker to swimmer, and the swimmer will turn. This costs a swimming tool; if he has none left, he'll drown.

Hmm... why would it cost a Swimmer if a Walker is assigned?

Interesting that L3 gives some way for Swimmers to turn, though. Worth further investigation before we write this topic off altogether, perhaps.

[Proxima]

The L2 Walker also reverses the direction of a currently-walking lemming

There is no Walker skill in L2. It's first introduced in L3.

Hmm... why would it cost a Swimmer if a Walker is assigned?

Because the swimmer becomes a walker while still in water, and therefore has to have another swimmer assigned to save him.

[Strato Incendus]

Strato, from this topic:

you could even assign another Shimmier to make the lemming shimmy back the way he came. This can be useful, since bouncing a Shimmier with a Blocker usually requires some fiddly setup (otherwise, the lemming will easily just shimmy over the Blocker's head). And since Shimmiers don't turn around automatically when hitting regular walls (luckily!), we can use tricks like these to turn them around instead (shimmy, climb, slide back down, shimmy back).

Hi WillLem, I think you misunderstood my post. Here's the full context:

Great, thanks for implementing this, WillLem! I look forward to seeing how it turns out in practice.

The exception to this is if the lem is also a Slider, in which case they slide down, dangle, and ultimately fall facing the opposite direction to their approach.

For added utility, at that point you could even assign another Shimmier to make the lemming shimmy back the way he came. This can be useful, since bouncing a Shimmier with a Blocker usually requires some fiddly setup (otherwise, the lemming will easily just shimmy over the Blocker's head). And since Shimmiers don't turn around automatically when hitting regular walls (luckily!), we can use tricks like these to turn them around instead (shimmy, climb, slide back down, shimmy back).

By "turning a Shimmier around with another Shimmier", I was referring to the case where he turns a corner, climbs up, then slides down and dangles. That's why I wrote at that point, we could assign another Shimmier (to make him shimmy back again).

In short: This was just me endorsing the turning-upward-corners behaviour of Shimmiers that are also Climbers.

I actually do NOT think it should be possible to simply turn a Shimmier around while shimmying by assigning another Shimmier. This is indeed one of the "broken" properties of the Walker. The reason I'm fine with it for the Walker is the Walker hardly does anything else, aside from cancelling skills. But Shimmiers can already be used to cancel skills, just like Jumpers. If Shimmiers can also turn around lemmings now (even if only in certain circumstances), they'd arguably become even more powerful than Walkers.

I assume it was an honest mistake, but by misunderstanding my post by only quoting a very specific part of it ("quote mining"), you made it look as if I held a position I don't hold, and now, a whole thread has followed from it.

[WillLem]

There is no Walker skill in L2. It's first introduced in L3.

I see, thanks. I've edited the previous post.

Because the swimmer becomes a walker while still in water, and therefore has to have another swimmer assigned to save him.

This seems odd; is this ever required as part of a level's solution?

If so, then I wonder whether it would have been better to simply allow Swimmer-to-Swimmer to turn the lem in water. If not, then it's probably not something that the game designers intended. Not that we necessarily want to imitate previous design, but it's useful to know (or at least guess) what previous designers had in mind when discussing these sorts of things.

Hi WillLem, I think you misunderstood my post. Here's the full context:
---
I assume it was an honest mistake, but by misunderstanding my post by only quoting a very specific part of it ("quote mining"), you made it look as if I held a position I don't hold, and now, a whole thread has followed from it.

Yes, genuine misunderstanding. I was skim-reading over some previous topics and thought, at a glance, that you were suggesting that Shimmiers be able to turn Shimmiers. I've now amended the OP to remove references to this post, and any inference that you support the proposed idea. My apologies, I'll be more mindful of this sort of thing in future!