Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
Place a 1 block tall shallow pool, with blocks on either side.
[Block][Water][Water][Water][Water][Block]
[Block][Block][ Block][ Block][ Block][Block]
Many of you are experienced EE players and understand that when you land in this pool, it is indeed possible to get out: simply hold down, then up, and voila.
Problem: There are many levels that have pools similar to this, and inexperienced players cannot get out (it's even an issue in the home world). Now you may be thinking, "let them figure it out for themselves" and "why not give them a good challenge?" However, why should an action item, placed in a reasonable location, be incredibly hard to travel from? Players have to place dots or arrows above the water to make it easy for players just to get out of the water.
[Side note] In a single level I was playing, within 10 minutes 3 different players were upset that the pool part of the level was "impossible" and I had to tell/show them that it was indeed passable.
To me, this is less of a problem with the design of the levels, as the placement of the water is perfectly reasonable for a game that boasts its powerful physics engine. This is a problem about the restrictiveness of the fluid mechanic in everybody edits.
Solutions:
1. Give the players a boost when leaving the water.
2. Demonstrate the possibility of leaving shallow water in a tutorial.
3. Make traveling through fluids (water, swamp, lava) faster.
What do you think about this? Do you [have any other ideas / want] to fix this?
Offline
Maybe when you come out of the water, you get an extra boost. I haven't seen any water minis that would get ruined because of this, but you never know.
Offline
Don't change physicks of exsisting blocks please
Offline
Maybe when you come out of the water, you get an extra boost
So basically every place where water meets the surface? I think that might mess some things up at least somewhere...
Offline
It'd be a physics change, rather not do it. Place a dot on the edges and solved.
No u.
Offline
Well you could consider it a bug fix.
Changing / removing blocks & decorations was possible, too^^
Offline
Well you could consider it a bug fix.
Changing / removing blocks & decorations was possible, too^^
Yes but that's not a physics change, those are much more impactful.
As much as I'd like to fix it, I know it's annoying, I don't want to break any levels.
No u.
Offline
It'd be a physics change, rather not do it. Place a dot on the edges and solved.
What about the tutorial option?
simply hold down, then up, and voila.
Even knowing this, I still cannot do it the majority of the time
Offline
I'm not entirely sure that having an extra boost would break levels: the player would only reach a height still possible without this fix: through the current, tedious method. I could be wrong though.
Offline
Badoosh wrote:simply hold down, then up, and voila.
Even knowing this, I still cannot do it the majority of the time
Yeah, it has a weird inconsistency.
And @Badoosh obviously it wouldn't change much for 1 block deep pools. But if you used water as part of the mini, but not in a pool, maybe in the air or something, it would change the upwards speed when you go through it.
thx for sig bobithan
Offline
BEE wrote:Badoosh wrote:simply hold down, then up, and voila.
Even knowing this, I still cannot do it the majority of the time
Yeah, it has a weird inconsistency.
Then they could make it consistent?
I mean it would be easy to spread word through tutorials or word of mouth if it were at least consistent.
Offline
I didn't know that are people who don't know this. But anyways, whats the point of making 1 block depth pool?
Everybody edits, but some edit more than others
Offline
skullz17 wrote:BEE wrote:Badoosh wrote:simply hold down, then up, and voila.
Even knowing this, I still cannot do it the majority of the time
Yeah, it has a weird inconsistency.
Then they could make it consistent?
I mean it would be easy to spread word through tutorials or word of mouth if it were at least consistent.
I think the problem is that messing with it, even if it ends up consistent, might mess up other stuff which will mess up worlds.
thx for sig bobithan
Offline
I think the problem is that messing with it, even if it ends up consistent, might mess up other stuff which will mess up worlds.
I don't know exactly how programming works, but I'm not sure how making something consistent would mess up other physics related things. I might just have to accept that this is the case though, if it is, since I have no desire to learn to program any time soon. =P
Offline
If we're ruling out the physics options then just edit it into the tutorial, simple.
What about hookjumps?
This is a false statement.
Offline
Since the blocks are positioned in that fashion (having to push down then up again) means that the level is intended for a certain level of expertise (learning a technique.)
Hookjumps are also difficult for newer players, and making those easier would require adding a booster. Hookjumps are also intended for the player to have a certain level of expertise, hence making the level difficult.
Offline
What about hookjumps?
To me, this is less of a problem with the design of the levels, as the placement of the water is perfectly reasonable for a game that boasts its powerful physics engine.
Hookjumps are purely level design aspects, whereas the water fluid is not (though as the person above argued it can be used to design a challenge, it is not necessarily its only purpose). Water fluid is a feature of the game that is restrictive in it's "added challenge" , hookjumps are challenges designed from the physics of the game.
...
What I'm trying to say here is that the pool challenges are designed off of a bad physics mistake, whereas hooks are designed around fundamental physics.
Offline
It'd be a physics change, rather not do it. Place a dot on the edges and solved.
I think the point of the topic is to say that many people don't do that.
Offline
[ Started around 1733961028.3077 - Generated in 0.062 seconds, 12 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.71 MiB (Peak: 1.95 MiB) ]