Designing levels

[borogove]

Some possible ideas for enhancements:
- Allow users to see the list of levels that they've saved in the warehouse.
- Have a 'next level' field in the warehouse, so that designers can create a series of challenges similar to the built-in levels.
- When a user loads a level from the warehouse, automatically switch into Game mode - and make sure that all the antisign objects are deleted from the toolbox.
- Don't allow the players to delete (or draw over) parts of the original level design (unless they switch to Sandbox mode).  Currently, players can just delete any bits of the level that are built out of pieces that are available in the user's toolbox.

Thanks!

Borogove

[Kevan]

Exploring the warehouse was something I was going to implement eventually, but the 'next level' idea is a great one, I'll certainly bear it in mind.

The game-mode and antisign issues were bugs, and should both be fixed now.

As for deleting parts of the level design - I did think about this earlier in development, but it seemed clearer for a user who was halfway through solving a puzzle if they simply knew that all girders could be deleted, rather than having to remember which were their own and which were the level designer's. This does put the onus on the level designer to be careful not to build puzzles which can be solved by erasing decoration, but if there's going to be an onus, that seems a more appropriate person for it to be on - there's plenty of other scenery to choose from.

I might be overlooking cases where you'd want to give the player specific components and allow them to use more of them, just not to delete the originals. It seems a very obscure thing to want, though, off the top of my head.

[borogove]

Hi Kevan,

Thanks for the reply!

I appreciate that if this is an intentional design decision then it just makes things that much more challenging for the level designer to get it right.  However, as a player I think that I'd feel like I was cheating if I could only solve a level by deleting the original scenery...

I do think there could be cases where a designer might want to use playable pieces in the level design though: for example, see tiratad, which could be solved very easily by removing the turn signal. (There are other ways of solving that level though!)

One other idea in the same vein -- which would allow level designers to pose some more interesting challenges -- would be to have a type of tile that is only available in the sandbox (so it can't be deleted by players), which behaves the same as a blank square.  (It could appear dark grey instead of black).  This would allow the designer to create bits of a level that can't be filled in.  Could be used for a number of things: for example, to create holes that must be avoided, or to create an area in which bulldozers can't be turned back or blocked.

Also (just to keep you busy), it'd be great if you could restrict the player to certain numbers of each type of piece (like in Lemmings!).

I assume that we might also see something happening with the '$' amount that appears in the sandbox - for example, restrict players to having a limited budget to solve a particular level.

Ta,

Andrew

[Travholt]

Also (just to keep you busy), it'd be great if you could restrict the player to certain numbers of each type of piece (like in Lemmings!).

Nooooo, please don't! There's already enough of that type of game. I was delighted when I discovered that there were no restrictions, and that's exactly what's appealing with this game: Instead of trying to find a predefined solution -- you just use your brains and creativity.

[Kevan]

I don't know, I think I'd feel that the designer was probably cheating, if the only way I could complete a level was to erase its scenery. Maybe if I can think of a way to automatically distinguish fixed scenery from user-placed scenery - I'm not sure if Processing has any easy way to colour-tint sprites...

Good point about the turn signal. Maybe another antisign-type component that means the player can't place or erase anything adjacent to it?

The blank square thing seems like a useful idea, and has now been added. The Lemmings thing is something I'd considered for designers who wanted to use them (probably as an antisign-type block where you put the relevant block above it, and a barrel below showing how many can be used), but I won't get around to it just yet.

[Rene]

First of all, great game, Kevan! The pieces have just the right combination of usefulness and limitation. I also like graphics design.

I have to say, I agree with borogrove. As a puzzle solver, I find it awkward that I have to remember which parts I have added in an attempted solution, and which parts were there originally. When I am stranted halfway through a attempt, I typically just load the level anew, instead of painstakingly removing my own parts.
There are plenty of nice and fun levels out there that would be very easy when you remove parts of the original design (see e.g. jatelab).

It doesn't help that the "clear" button removes all pieces, instead of returning you to the original puzzle (did it do that in the basic levels as well )

But besides this minor annoyance, I tremendously enjoy the game and all the creative puzzles since I found it on JayIsGames

Rene