[SUG] 2px brick thickness for Platformers

[WillLem]

Main reasons:

+ It's more substantial
+ It's closer to the L2 Platformer in appearance

Currently, if there are no replies to this post, this will be implemented as shown in the screenshot (i.e. an extra pixel's width, thickened downwards from the existing 1px platform). Whilst there is potential for the Platformer becoming a height-gaining skill if we thicken it upwards (as in L2's Platformer physics), it's probably more interesting game-wide to keep it as a non-height-gaining skill.

The sprite will also be updated to be holding 2px-wide bricks.

Thoughts?

[namida]

Keep in mind that in levels that provide a significant number of platformers + downwards destructive skills, it would become possible to slightly move downwards this way. This could especially be of concern in the case of ceilings that are *just* too low to platform under, or falls that are *just* fatal.

[WillLem]

it would become possible to slightly move downwards this way. This could especially be of concern in the case of ceilings that are *just* too low to platform under, or falls that are *just* fatal.

Are you thinking in terms of possible backroutes, or annoyingly fiddly levels? Or both?

[namida]

it would become possible to slightly move downwards this way. This could especially be of concern in the case of ceilings that are *just* too low to platform under, or falls that are *just* fatal.

Are you thinking in terms of possible backroutes, or annoyingly fiddly levels? Or both?

I was thinking more about backroutes (and making it trickier to prevent them), but annoying fiddly levels could be a concern too. Currently, no vertical movement is possible with platformers, but your change would enable that. That's not to say it's an inherent no-go; just that this needs to be considered.

[WillLem]

Currently, no vertical movement is possible with platformers, but your change would enable that

Yes, good point. I was mostly concerned that thickening upwards would allows upwards movement, but of course thickening downwards similarly allows downwards movement. Definitely worth considering.

I was trying to find where it had been decided that the NL platformer should do neither (or at least that it shouldn't allow upwards movement), and although I couldn't explicitly find that, I did chance upon this thread. The gist of it is that mobius felt that the NL platformer should behave more like the L2/Lix platformer and allow upwards movement (amongst other things such as being more assignable).

With allowing upwards movement, it's a difficult call to make. I generally tend to prefer the idea of buffing rather than nerfing the skills, as I disagree strongly with the notion that the game engine should be tailored towards backroute prevention. However, the fact that the Platformer can't gain height makes it more nuanced and interesting; it means that the player has to decide carefully where to use Platformers as opposed to Builders, for example, and such a distinction can make creative level solving more fun. So, I tend to side with "don't allow upwards movement" - not for reasons of backroute prevention, but because what the skill loses in versatility it makes up for in uniqueness and puzzle value.

As for downwards movement, I probably would be similarly unconvinced by the backroute-prevention argument, but I can see the potential for fiddly levels requiring a single dig and then immediate cancellation in order to create downwards movement. Maybe not so bad (and in fact quite clever) if it's just the one assignment as part of a bigger puzzle, but having to make a full staircase like this would just be tedious and annoying.

Then again, it's already very possible to make tedious and annoying levels requiring constant use of framestepping and other player assists to put the solution together. There's not really any sensible way this sort of thing can be avoided wihtout stripping those tools from the game (which nobody wants, not even me). So, in that light, the question then becomes: is "tedious level avoidance" a strong enough reason not to implement something? I'd say it ends up being only slightly stronger a reason than backroute prevention, weakened by its inherent absurdity.

I'd like to get other people's thoughts on this. I was playing L2 the other day and I just instinctively prefer the appearance of the thicker Platformer. The 1px platform can look a bit odd and un-game-like at times, like a line sketch rather than a fully finised drawing.

So, the conversation is open. Thoughts and suggestions are welcome. I'd particularly be interested to know mobius's current opinions on the NL platformer now that a few years have passed with it being in regular use.

[Simon]

Two pixels (would be 4 in Lix) look and feel better.

A two-pixel tickness requires that you must allow either to gain or to lose height with the platformer. This loses a nice invariant of the NL platformer, and I've envied the NL platformer because the Lix platformer allows the fumbling for height, which is annoying in practice. NL's platformer is comparatively boring, and it's assignable only in a few select spots, but it's clear.

One solution for Lix is to embrace the fumbling, make it 4 pixels thick (your 2 lo-res pixels) and have it gain even twice the height with half the annoyance.

I don't have an obvious answer for SuperLemmix.

-- Simon

[nin10doadict]

"Could allow downward movement"
"Fiddly levels"
I feel a troll level design coming on 

[Simon]

If you accept the downwards gain (you consider it clever), consider to make it 4 pixels thick (not only 2) and embrace the new mechanic.

-- Simon

[WillLem]

If you accept the downwards gain (you consider it clever)

N.B. I'd consider it clever if used as one single assignment in the context of a larger puzzle with several other assignments. It could be 'the trick to spot', if you like.

Anything requiring repeated assignments of Platformer > Digger > Platformer > Digger > Platfomer > Digger (I'm looking at you, nin10doadict ) would not be clever, and would simply be tedious and trollish. With that said, it would of course be an effective descent tactic, perhaps in the context of a challenge solution or something like that.

It's a matter of taste though; I don't mind builderfest levels, most people dislike them. And there will always be people that want to make those sorts of levels, even if just for fun. That's why it's absurd to try and prevent it (such as by limiting the scope of the Platformer skill); anyone determined enough to make troll levels will find a way to do so. Ergo, whilst a concern, it's certainly not a dealbreaker.

consider to make it 4 pixels thick (not only 2) and embrace the new mechanic.

Hmm. Probably about 50/50 on this.

It could work in the context of larger surroundings (although the bricks would have to be huge during the placement animation as well):



However, I prefer the idea of it looking and feeling like the thin bars in Marble (and the similar grey ones in Fire):

as opposed to

[WillLem]

Let's give the 2px version a try in the next update (2.8.3). If people don't like it, we can always go back to 1px in 2.9 or 3.0.

Comments and suggestions welcome.