The Direct Drop Topic

[WillLem]

What is Direct Drop?

Essentially, this:



Midair exiting is also of interest here:




Which Lemmings (1991) Ports/Engines Feature Direct Drop?

Port	Direct Drop for Exits |	Direct Drop for Traps |	Midair Exits |	Midair Traps
Amiga	No	Yes	No	Yes
Apple Mac	No	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed
Atari ST	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed
DOS	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
PC-98	Yes	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed
SEGA MegaDrive/Genesis	Yes	Unconfirmed	No	Unconfirmed
SEGA Master System	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed
SNES	No	Yes	No	Yes
Sony PlayStation (2/PSP)	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed
Windows '95	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
ZX Spectrum	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed	Unconfirmed

For clones, the info here refers to the latest stable version:

Clone	Direct Drop for Exits |	Direct Drop for Traps |	Midair Exits |	Midair Traps
Lix	No	Yes	No	Yes
NeoLemmix	No	Yes	No	Yes
SuperLemmix	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Which Lemmings (1991) Levels Can Be Solved Using Direct Drop?

List of L1 (Amiga port) levels for which a DD solution is possible (i.e. the entire quota of required lems to pass the level can be dropped into the exit from an otherwise unsurvivable fall distance). If the DD solution is therefore a backroute, this is noted with an asterisk*:

L1 levels for which a Direct Drop solution is possible

Fun 5 You Need Bashers This Time
Fun 8 Not As Complicated As It Looks
Fun 9 As Long As You Try Your Best
Fun 10 Smile If You Love Lemmings
Fun 11 Keep Your Hair On Mr. Lemming
Fun 12 Patience
Fun 14 Origins And Lemmings
Fun 16 Don't Do Anything Too Hasty
Fun 17 Easy When You Know How
Fun 19 Take Good Care Of My Lemmings
Fun 20 We Are Now At LEMCON ONE
Fun 21 You Live And Lem
Fun 22 A BEAST Of A Level
Fun 23 I've Lost That Lemming Feeling
Fun 24 Konbanwa Lemming San
Fun 25 Lemmings Lemmings Everywhere
Fun 26 Nightmare On Lem Street
Fun 27 Let's Be Careful Out There
Fun 28 If Only They Could Fly
Fun 30 Lock Up Your Lemmings

Tricky 1 This Should Be A Doddle
Tricky 4 Here's One I Prepared Earlier
Tricky 5 Careless Clicking Costs Lives
Tricky 6 Lemmingology
Tricky 7 Been There, Seen It, Done It
Tricky 10 There's A Lot Of Them About
Tricky 11 Lemmings In The Attic
Tricky 12 Bitter Lemming
Tricky 13 Lemming Drops
Tricky 14 MENACING!!
Tricky 16 Luvly Jubly
Tricky 21 All The 6s
Tricky 22 Turn Around Young Lemmings
Tricky 25 Cascade
Tricky 26 I Have A Cunning Plan*
Tricky 28 Lost Something?
Tricky 29 Rainbow Island
Tricky 30 The Crankshaft

Taxing 2 Watch Out, There's Traps About
Taxing 5 The Prison
Taxing 8 The Art Gallery
Taxing 10 Izzie Wizzie Lemmings Get Busy
Taxing 12 The Ascending Pillar Scenario
Taxing 14 Hunt The Nessy
Taxing 16 Mary Poppins' Land
Taxing 17 X Marks The Spot
Taxing 18 Tribute To M.C. Escher*
Taxing 20 Walk The Web Rope
Taxing 22 Come On Over To My Place*

Mayhem 14 Pea Soup
Mayhem 17 Stepping Stones*
Mayhem 22 A BEAST II Of A Level
Mayhem 23 Going Up...
Mayhem 25 Have A Nice Day
Mayhem 28 Mind The Step

Existing Forum Discussion on Direct Drop

NeoLemmix - 2.00 "Disable direct drop" and "Timed bombers" options
NeoLemmix - [NO-CHANGE] [DISCUSSION] [PLAYER] Direct Drop on traps and teleporters
NeoLemmix - [FIXED] [BUG] [PLAYER] Falling OHNOER'S can direct drop into the exit
NeoLemmix - [DISCUSSION][PLAYER] Game mechanics in general

It's also briefly mentioned in these topics:

NeoLemmix - Proxima's Reviews (a review of Lemmings DD)
NeoLemmix - Immediate turn-offs
NeoLemmix - [DISC][PLAYER] Midair exit rules
NeoLemmix - First Note: Don´T Make it
SuperLemmix - SuperLemmix Discussion Topic
SuperLemmix - [FEAT] New Exiting Mechanics (Direct Drop, etc)
SuperLemmix - [DISC] NeoLemmix>SuperLemmix Levelpack Compatibility
SuperLemmix - [SUG][PHYSICS] Refine Builder terrain checks
Tech & Research - Glitches in Lemmings


Should Direct Drop be allowed?

It's debatable (see above links to existing topics, in which the subject is discussed at length).

My own opinion on this is simple:

1) Since the goal of the level is to guide the lemming(s) to the exit, interaction with the exit should always be allowed as long as the lemming has made contact with the exit, regardless of fall distance or any other factors. This should always have been an intended mechanic, and never regarded as a bug, especially since:

2) If falling lems can interact with other triggered objects (traps, teleporters, etc - excluding water and fire, which are continuous rather than triggered), then they should also be allowed to interact with exits. Any ports/engines/clones which feature one behaviour and not the other are therefore inconsistent.

[geoo]

I think historically, one of the considerations for ditching direct drop in modern engines was that it had the tendency to cause backroutes in custom levels. There isn't really much of a reason for level designers to use direct drop as a feature, so with the backroute consideration it's more of a nuisance.

Regarding your table of where it works, isn't there at least some engine where direct drop only works if the exit trigger area is on terrain (so the lemmings go home instead of splatting, but they would fall through an exit that's in mid-air)? So I think it's more nuanced than "it either works or it doesn't".

2) If falling lems can interact with traps, water, fire and other objects, then they should also be allowed to interact with exits. Any ports/engines/clones which feature one behaviour and not the other are therefore inconsistent.

Comparing permanent traps (like fire and water) to exits in this context feels like comparing apples and oranges. Many triggered trap on the other hand are quite similar.
Should triggered traps allow for direct drop? Arguably that depends on the design of the trap. For example, it makes sense for the ONML rock chameleon to catch lemmings in mid-air. It makes little sense for the 10-ton trap to squish lemmings in mid-air. Even without exits in the mix, you have to make a call which will feel weird for some traps (unless you want to introduce different trap types, which would be a whole new rabbit hole...).

[WillLem]

Thanks for the comments, geoo.

one of the considerations for ditching direct drop in modern engines was that it had the tendency to cause backroutes in custom levels

This is something I could debate at length, but I'll try to keep it concise. The supposed tendency for direct drop to cause backroutes doesn't, in my opinion, override the principle that trigger contact should result in interaction. The lem meets the exit trigger before they meet the ground; from any point of view (level design, programming, gameplay, etc), this meeting should be meaningful.

There isn't really much of a reason for level designers to use direct drop as a feature

I completely disagree

Regarding your table of where it works, isn't there at least some engine where direct drop only works if the exit trigger area is on terrain (so the lemmings go home instead of splatting, but they would fall through an exit that's in mid-air)? So I think it's more nuanced than "it either works or it doesn't".

Good shout, I've added these columns to the table. Hopefully, we can fill that table in and see which ports behave in which ways. It'd be interesting to see the variety of interactions across the varous ports. I have ready access to Amiga, PS2 and Windows '95 Lemmings. I could fire up the Genesis and SNES emulators as well (if nobody else beats me to it).

Should triggered traps allow for direct drop? Arguably that depends on the design of the trap. For example, it makes sense for the ONML rock chameleon to catch lemmings in mid-air. It makes little sense for the 10-ton trap to squish lemmings in mid-air.

Yes, in-game aesthetics begin to become important. We see that the exit has "steps", and so the lemming must ascend those steps. This adds weight to the "lem must land safely first" argument.

However, exits can have a variety of designs (especially now that we have custom content), as can traps. So, it seems best to decide on a physics system which applies to all objects, to some extent regardless of aesthetics. Whatever the decision, if a 10-ton trap can squash lems in midair on any given platform/engine, lems should definitely be able to exit in midair on that same platform/engine.

So, in order of preference:

1) Direct drop and midair interaction (applied to both exits and traps)
2) No direct drop and no midair interaction (applied to both exits and traps)
3 onwards) Any other combination

[Proxima]

I could fire up the Genesis and SNES emulators as well (if nobody else beats me to it)

Genesis does have direct drop -- it's pretty well-known because of how blatant some of its direct drop backroutes are:



Mac Lemmings does not.

[kaywhyn]

Clone	Direct Drop for Exits
NeoLemmix	No

I'm sure you're aware, but it's technically a yes/no for NL depending on the player version. Yes for NL versions before 1.43n, no for this and all NL player versions beyond that.

As for the rest of the Dos row, I'm sure it's a straight "yes" for all of them. I can confirm later on by posting again

[WillLem]

isn't there at least some engine where direct drop only works if the exit trigger area is on terrain (so the lemmings go home instead of splatting, but they would fall through an exit that's in mid-air)?

Genesis does have direct drop -- it's pretty well-known because of how blatant some of its direct drop backroutes are

Turns out it's Genesis / MegaDrive (and possibly others that are still unconfirmed) that behaves this way - so, DD on terrain but no midair exit access. I've updated the table with this.

Also added SNES info.

Mac Lemmings does not.

Added this for exits - do you happen to know about the other columns?

I'm sure you're aware, but it's technically a yes/no for NL depending on the player version. Yes for NL versions before 1.43n, no for this and all NL player versions beyond that.

Interesting to know, but for the purposes of completing the table it seems best just to keep it to the latest stable and/or supported version of each.

As for the rest of the Dos row, I'm sure it's a straight "yes" for all of them. I can confirm later on by posting again

Good shout, let me know your findings!

[kaywhyn]

Tested, and for Dos it's Yes for everything except midair exits. However, like NL, floaters can exit midair. Fallers will simply fall past the exit, again just like NL.

I'm sure you're aware, but it's technically a yes/no for NL depending on the player version. Yes for NL versions before 1.43n, no for this and all NL player versions beyond that.

Interesting to know, but for the purposes of completing the table it seems best just to keep it to the latest stable and/or supported version of each.

Fair enough. In that case, I would put (New Formats) or something like that after NL Same thing with your level sides topic, since you will recall that the edge behaviors are different depending on the NL format/player

[Turrican]

Personally, when it comes to the old games/engines , I liked that they supported direct drop.

But when it comes to the modern engines , my opinion , is strongly against direct drop.

And the reason for that , is because the modern engines allow the creation of very tall levels. And especially the levels that are really tall , while having relatively small width ( compared to their height). These levels, have the biggest potential to be affected by direct drop. And the existence of direct drop has the potential to be detrimental to their gameplay and solution.

Imagine spending a lot of time, to build a really, tall level, with the exit , on the bottom part of it.
And also having , a pretty complex, nuanced , and hard to find path , that the player needs to find , in order to lead the lemmings to the exit. But the player instead , just casually finds a backroute on your level , that allows them , to use direct drop to their advantage, and suddenly, you see the all lemmings your level contains , to casually falling from 1500 pixels height , to the exit, and just casually exiting, after having fallen, from the height, that I've just described!

And just putting terrain above, above the exit, is not always the best solution. What if If I want , in a very tall level , in an engine that allows direct drop , to have some floaters landing normally from very large height, on the exit , and exiting ,  while at the same time, not allowing normal lemmings do the same?

In comparison, if I want to simulate direct drop, in a very tall level , in an engine, that doesn't have direct drop enabled , I can just, put an updraft , just above the exit, so  I will have direct drop , perfectly simulated , and the lemmings, safely falling from a very large height to the exit. In the previous scenario, that I described, in the engine that has direct drop enabled, I don't have that luxury.

In short , very tall levels, are one of my favourite types of levels. But these levels may have their own needs , that may be different, compared to the needs of more regular levels.
That's why imo , having direct drop disabled, may benefit them more, than having direct drop enabled.

And that also makes the discussion and comparison , between older ports and engines , mostly meaningless imo! How many of the older ports/engines contained levels , that are over 1000 pixels tall?

Also when discussing how the physics should work, I think gameplay and puzzle quality, should take priority, over consistency between different mechanisms.

[Dullstar]

Consider the actual visual representations of objects, i.e. how they are presented to the player, not how the game sees them internally.

Water and continuous traps such as fire don't represent an inconsistency regardless of how direct drop is handled. For example, suppose you enter a fire: it doesn't matter if you walked into it, fell into it, flew, whatever: by occupying the space you are getting completely roasted. The experience is probably not going to be particularly good for your health, to say the least. If you fall into water, you are in the water now; falling will not cause you to pass through it.

Many triggered traps, on the other hand, involve an object that doesn't really pose an active threat to your health until the trigger has been activated. Most of these traps appear to be something along the lines of pressure plates, but you could imagine a variety of mechanisms. A pressure plate would only activate if you stepped on it. A tripwire, on the other hand, can be triggered by passing through the space. While the game implements them all the same, it wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable for individual traps to have different rules about whether fallers should be able to trigger them. On the other hand, it's not really needed, because the game is consistent about how different types of traps are placed. Most of them are always placed on the ground, but for example the pillar spike trap is always attached to a wall (and thus its trigger area is mid-air). Because of this, allowing them to work mid-air is quite convenient: it means the spike traps can share code with the other traps, and since the other traps are going to be on the ground anyway, it doesn't really meaningfully change their behavior (if they fail to trigger the trap mid-air, then they just immediately trigger it when they land). Similarly, direct drop into a trap generally doesn't change things much; the lemming is dead either way and the only real difference is what goes on the death certificate. While you could certainly make a level relying on the behavior (a triggered trap can only kill one lemming at a time and splatters are already doomed, thus a trap triggered by a splatter is effectively wasting its time), none of the official levels do (nor do they really contain direct drops onto traps at all, unless you intentionally go out of your way to make it happen). Arguably for most traps the most logical behavior would be for a mix of the two where the lemming splats but the trap is still triggered regardless.

The visual design of exits is basically a building with stairs, and in official levels. I mean, judging from the door, it looks like there's a portal too, but it looks more like the sort of portal you would have to walk into, rather than one that sucks you in. The animations and boing sound effect also seem to communicate more that the Lemmings actively leap into the exit, rather than passively get sucked in. Thus, this suggests direct drop is probably an oversight rather than an intended feature: because the exit doesn't appear to be sucking them in, how exactly would it break a fall?

[WillLem]

Tested, and for Dos it's Yes for everything except midair exits.

Thanks for the info, I've added this to the table.

Fair enough. In that case, I would put (New Formats) or something like that after NL

I don't think that's necessary tbh. By not specifying anything, it's reasonable to assume we're referring to the most recent stable version.

If it becomes necessary due to further discussion, then I'll add version details for clarification. Otherwise, we can leave it as it is.

when it comes to the modern engines , my opinion , is strongly against direct drop.
...
And the reason for that , is because the modern engines allow the creation of very tall levels
...
Imagine spending a lot of time, to build a really, tall level, with the exit , on the bottom part of it.
And also having , a pretty complex, nuanced , and hard to find path , that the player needs to find , in order to lead the lemmings to the exit. But the player instead , just casually finds a backroute on your level , that allows them , to use direct drop to their advantage, and suddenly, you see the all lemmings your level contains , to casually falling from 1500 pixels height , to the exit, and just casually exiting, after having fallen, from the height, that I've just described!

Ah, the old "it breaks my level" argument. Difficult to really discuss that because yes, you're right, in that very specific scenario your level would be broken.

But that doesn't mean the entire engine physics should be tailored to that one specific scenario.

Also, a valid counter-argument might be that it actually isn't as easy as you might think to backroute a level using direct drop. I've done tests across various platforms so far, and in most cases it's really quite difficult to contrive a direct drop scenario when the level isn't specifically set up for it. If a player has worked hard to find a route that facilitates a direct drop solution, why shouldn't they be rewarded for finding that solution?

We have 3 currently-maintained custom engines, 2 of which don't support direct drop, 1 of which does. I'd say that's fair enough in terms of level design options!

In short , very tall levels, are one of my favourite types of levels. But these levels may have their own needs , that may be different, compared to the needs of more regular levels.

The uncomfortable conclusion here is that Lix or NeoLemmix are probably better suited to those types of levels, then! For contrast, here are a few examples of level types that aren't supported by Lix or NeoLemmix (but are supported by SuperLemmix):

• Levels requiring lemmings to exit in midair (without providing Floaters or Gliders)
• Levels featuring Ballooner, Grenader, Spearer, etc (i.e. the new SLX-exclusive skills)
• Levels allowing Shimmiers to transition to Climber
• Timed Bomber levels
• Superlemming levels
• Levels that require release rate management (supported by NL but not Lix)
• "Classic"-style levels intended to be played without player assists (technically supported by all, but SLX actively encourages this type of level and provides features to directly support it, whereas the others don't)
• As of the upcoming 2.8, levels in which 2 teams of lemmings each have their own dedicated exit!

The list could go on... Hopefully you get the point - i.e. what one engine provides in terms of level design possibility, another doesn't. That shouldn't necessarily be seen as a bad thing, it's just part of that engine's personality. We're actually quite lucky in this community to have so much choice!

And that also makes the discussion and comparison , between older ports and engines , mostly meaningless imo! How many of the older ports/engines contained levels , that are over 1000 pixels tall?

One type of level design doesn't render an entire topic meaningless. There are many reasons why Forum users might be interested to see, at a glance, which ports behave in which ways.

It might be meaningless to you specifically, but that doesn't mean the topic shouldn't exist, or doesn't provide value to other users.

Also when discussing how the physics should work, I think gameplay and puzzle quality, should take priority, over consistency between different mechanisms.

The problem with this is as I've outlined above: there are infinite gameplay and puzzle possibilities, especially with a game as complex and nuanced as Lemmings; it all depends on the many possibilities that custom level design presents. Why should one design be favoured over another when it comes to deciding on engine physics? The answer is that it shouldn't. Decide on the physics first, then design levels to suit the engine.

Or, if you disagree, how do we decide which gameplay/puzzle elements should determine physics, and which shouldn't?

I suppose it comes down to personal preference. I personally would always want to be able to drop lems directly into the exit. That represents good gameplay to me - it makes sense, and I would expect it to happen (and did, when I was playing on Windows 95 - it came as a surprise to me when I went back to Amiga and it didn't happen!)

Water and continuous traps such as fire don't represent an inconsistency regardless of how direct drop is handled

Yes, I realise that. By "traps" I mean triggered traps, not water or fire objects. I've updated the OP to clarify.

direct drop into a trap generally doesn't change things much; the lemming is dead either way and the only real difference is what goes on the death certificate

This is probably the only reason why there is an argument to be had, in fairness. DD for exits results in an entirely different and potentially game-breaking* behaviour. For traps, it makes no difference to the actual lemming themselves - although, it does momentarily disable the trap for other lems: a reason in favour of keeping direct drop for traps, perhaps.

*i.e. game-breaking either way: a level that needs direct drop is broken in the absence of direct drop, as much as the reverse is true. I'd still advocate for the engine providing consistent physics than trying to fix the level, though.

Consider the actual visual representations of objects, i.e. how they are presented to the player, not how the game sees them internally.
...
The visual design of exits is basically a building with stairs, and in official levels ... The animations and boing sound effect also seem to communicate more that the Lemmings actively leap into the exit, rather than passively get sucked in

With any given exit design, I would expect to be able to drop lemmings directly into it from above, regardless of fall distance.

I don't so much imagine that the exit sucks the lemming in as imagine that the exit itself is an entirely "safe zone" for the lemming: regardless of how they access that area, it prevents death and allows the lemming to be saved. Maybe the steps have anti-splat pads on them (another way to simulate DD in NeoLemmix).

[Simon]

This is really 3 topics rolled into one: Physics research across engines, interpretation across engines, and design of SuperLemmix. I'll focus on the research here.

The distinction between mid-air exiting and grounded exiting isn't perfect. It's better to distinguish

• by lemming activity first,
  
• possibly by activity transition if research points us to it,
  
• and only by lemming groundedness if we can't explain it purely by activity.
  

Reason: In DOS Lemmings 1, the knowledge is that fallers don't exit, splatters don't exit, but fallers-turning-into-splatters may exit during this exact physics update. The groundedness is irrelevant for exiting; it merely prompted the faller to splat. Strictly, this irrelevance of groundedness is unverifiable by experiment; Occham's razor tells us to consider it irrelevant until we know better. At the very least, the groundedness wouldn't allow splatters to exit either after the splatter has missed his one-frame chance to exit.

More activities of interest:

• Floating. IIRC, floaters in DOS Lemmings 1 exit in mid-air outright. The devs prevented fallers from exiting, but not floaters. NL behaves the same, floaters exit mid-air, but fallers don't. What do floaters in Amiga L1 do?
  
• Climbing. DOS Lemmings 1 climbers are inside the wall, thus grounded (which I claim irrelevant), but otherwise similar to floaters (can't assign most skills). Can they exit mid-climb? I expect that climbers can indeed exit in DOS Lemmings 1.
  
• Drowning lemmings after they have started to drown. In DOS, they don't exit. But they move. On which engines can you drift horizontally into an exit as you drown?
  
• Drowning lemmings exactly during transition from falling to drowning. This will be interesting in DOS Lemmings 1: Like faller-to-splatter, it's a transition between two un-exitable activities, and we already know that faller-to-splatter may exit.
  
• Burning lemmings, exactly during transition.
  
• Theoretically, one can investigate hoisters, blockers, ..., but I feel that that these provide bonus knowledge only. They're not as crucial when you want to apply the knowledge later to interpretation or design. They're also harder to test, e.g., in DOS Lemmings 1, you'll have to move an exit trigger area onto a blocker via a falling oh-noer.
  

-- Simon

[kaywhyn]

Fair enough. In that case, I would put (New Formats) or something like that after NL

I don't think that's necessary tbh. By not specifying anything, it's reasonable to assume we're referring to the most recent stable version.

If it becomes necessary due to further discussion, then I'll add version details for clarification. Otherwise, we can leave it as it is.

I personally would still put in some kind of parenthetical or footnote regarding the engines. Yes, it may be clear to people like us that the most recent stable version is in a way implied, but others might not assume this for whatever reason. You want to be as specific as you can whenever possible, even on the off chance there may be a slight ambiguity. Direct drop for NL, for example, was dropped from way back in v1.43, the final major update of very Old Formats NL. It's not like it was dropped starting with Old Formats NL or even starting with New Formats. So really, what I'm suggesting is maybe put an asterisk next to "clones" or something in the OP and something brief like what you wrote in your post or something like, "these assume the most recent stable version of the engines." This would cover all the engines, not just NL

Let's just say I like being complete and very specific, it's just the way my mind works

To add to direct drop, I remember the time when I first played Icho's Lemmings Reunion pack on Lemmini I tried to do such a solution to one of Icho's Lemmings Reunion Castle levels, only to find to my surprise and chagrin that it doesn't work! It came about simply because I remember playing one of Conway's custom Dos packs which absolutely requires it given the level setup and the tools provided (I can't remember if it was a one skill level, but I remember it's from a very high spot with the exit all the way at the bottom) and therefore forces the player to discover that direct drop is possible on Dos. I thought it was pretty clever of me to come up with this idea as I couldn't see any other way to do the level at the time, so naturally I thought it would work on Lemmini too. Nope, no levels in that pack on that engine require it, especially as it's not present on Lemmini anyway. It was solvable, I just simply hadn't found the solution at the time I thought of direct drop, which I eventually did find a non-direct drop solution after working it out some more.

As another example unrelated to playing Lemmings on modern engines, whenever people say they went to San Diego for college/university in my home state of California, I always ask them, "which one, UCSD or San Diego State?" People always assume the former whenever people just say San Diego, I guess due to the prestige of the UC system, but these two are very different schools. Therefore, it's possible that the latter was meant instead when people just say San Diego. This is why if you're aware of two such institutions existing then clarification is needed, either by the person saying the full name of the school in the first place, or telling you the school's name after you've asked which one.   

[WillLem]

I personally would still put in some kind of parenthetical or footnote regarding the engines

OK, I've added a line to clarify that we're referring to the latest stable version for all clones.

I remember playing one of Conway's custom Dos packs which absolutely requires it given the level setup and the tools provided ... and therefore forces the player to discover that direct drop is possible on Dos

Levels that require direct drop (DD) are actually remarkably difficult to enforce. Gronkling was able to "backroute" quite a few Lemmings DD levels by getting the lems to the exit some other way than the intended DD solution.

As a backroute method, DD itself is not actually all that useful in a lot of cases. The table in the OP of Lemmings (1991) levels that can be completed using DD shows that only a small handful of these solutions are actually backroutes: in most cases, the level is open-ended enough that using the DD solution isn't really a backroute, as such, and is more often than not far more diffcult to achieve than the regular straightforward solution.

Those who condemn DD as backroute-prone should take another look at it. It can be difficult or even impossible to set up a DD solution when the level isn't specifically set up for it. Tall or otherwise vertically-oriented levels might seem particularly prone, but even then a difference of a single skill can be enough to prevent unwanted DD.

[Proxima]

As a backroute method, DD itself is not actually all that useful in a lot of cases. The table in the OP of Lemmings (1991) levels that can be completed using DD shows that only a small handful of these solutions are actually backroutes: in most cases, the level is open-ended enough that using the DD solution isn't really a backroute, as such, and is more often than not far more diffcult to achieve than the regular straightforward solution.

This is obviously not a good test, since original Lemmings has a majority of open-ended levels where backroutes (of any type) are not really an issue. Whether you like it or not, a majority of forum members do care about puzzle levels and avoiding backroutes that trivialise the puzzle.

A better test would be to transfer a usermade pack made in a non-DD environment to a DD environment and see how many backroutes open up -- and ideally do this for several packs, since results for a single pack might be skewed by aspects of the individual author's design style.

Or, you know, you could assume that those of us with 20 years' experience of building levels in DD environments know what we're talking about

[WillLem]

A better test would be to transfer a usermade pack made in a non-DD environment to a DD environment and see how many backroutes open up

Good shout. I probably won't have time to check this myself anytime soon but I agree that custom content is probably what people are more interested in here.

If I do manage to get time to look at a full pack (or several packs), I'll post the results in this topic.

Whether you like it or not, a majority of forum members do care about puzzle levels and avoiding backroutes that trivialise the puzzle.

As do I. I spent a whole evening fixing backroutes for 1 level in Lemminas Origins recently! Just because I advocate for other types of level design doesn't mean I'm anti-puzzles, I just think that there needs to be a balance.

Or, you know, you could assume that those of us with 20 years' experience of building levels in DD environments know what we're talking about

Really, you're playing the time card? Well... OK, but I'm only replying to this because it's you!

I don't doubt that anyone who's contributed to this topic so far (and the various topics linked to in the OP) knows what they're talking about, nor do I regard any of the arguments as invalid. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I assume you don't know what you're talking about.

Quite the contrary, in fact: the better an understanding I have of the counter-arguments, the more valid my own viewpoint feels. It seems that the community decided to dismiss DD as a bug/source of backroutes, rather than attempt to tap into its gameplay potential. I'm now simply promoting the opposite viewpoint because it's what seems right to me.

FWIW, I've clocked up 5 years' experience of my own (including making my own version of NeoLemmix!). Not that it should matter at all when it comes to discussing game physics; having an opinion for 1 year or having an opinion for 20 years doesn't make the opinion more or less valid. We've tried things one way for a while, let's try it another way.