Jump to content

Ihavenoname248

Moderator
  • Content count

    581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

Ihavenoname248 last won the day on October 10

Ihavenoname248 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

222 Chip

About Ihavenoname248

  • Rank
    BLOCK BUSTER II
  • Birthday 08/24/1994

Country

  • Country
    United States

Profile Information

  • Favourite Set
    CCLP4

Recent Profile Visitors

1,848 profile views
  1. IHNN's scores

    CCLP4 (MS) CCLP4 076: 397 (+18, bc) [Flow State] 079: 379 (+42, b) [Spring] 6,095,210 (106 bolds)
  2. CC2 Community Pack Survey

    Now, it's worth noting that CC1 Boot Rules was an option added shortly after the game was released and as such wasn't an option for the original level designers for CC2. Chuck threw it in after uploading the first version of dat2c2g for set conversions, as at the time nobody really thought that a conversion would be an endeavor and that boot dropping breaking levels would be the main concern. Though most levels don't use this option, I think there's some strong potential for ideas that only work in this space. As for viewports...I can definitely say that I've been designing with the 10x10 in mind but I'd hate to rule out a level (or have to enlarge the scale, which can screw with aesthetics or other balancing) just because it elected to use the smaller viewport. IMO just because most levels use the 10x10 naturally doesn't mean that 9x9 should be banned, as there could definitely be a good reason to use it. Heck, I even have a level that uses Hide Logic that wouldn't work without that option. Who's to say a good idea wouldn't benefit from having 9x9 instead? Ultimately my view is still much the same- allow basically anything to be in the final set from the start. If it's not liked and it doesn't do well in voting, then it doesn't end up in the set. But I don't see a compelling reason to flat out bar anything outside of maybe "voodoo" tiles.
  3. IHNN's scores

    CCLP2 (MS) 037: 324 (+2, b) [The Mystery of Why Nobody Found This Sooner] 6,045,250 (138 bolds) CCLP4 (MS) 134: 429 (+21, bc) [Pushover] 6,094,610 (104 bolds) CCLP4 (Lynx) 077: 495 (+6, b) [Brick Block Facility] 134: 422 (+19, b-1, pc) [Pushover]
  4. IHNN's scores

    CCLP2 117: 476 (+1, b) [RFFMaze] 139: 373 (+5, b) [Frostbite] 6,045,230 (138 bolds) CCLP4 077: 500 (+20, b) [Brick Block Facility] 101: 423 (+79, b) [Condo Management] 132: 513 (+17, bc) [Monorail] 6,094,200 (103 bolds)
  5. IHNN's scores

    CCLP4 (MS) 056: 554 (+9, b) [Spyro 3 Level] 072: 363 (+1, bc) [Suckageway] 6,093,240 (100 bolds)
  6. Jessi's Revenge

    10/10 got revenged would revenge again
  7. August 2018 Create Competition - Multiplayer Madness

    Far, far too late... here are the results and levels! In second place, earning 12 chip cup points... Dave Varberg with Splitsville. It's a level on rails, and the dynamite and dirt boots don't matter. The split screen isn't used to great effect either, as the level really doesn't request any simultaneous movement. And in first place is H2O with Split 1, Split 2, Split 3 and Split 4 with 15 chip cup points. I'll briefly summarize each of these before revealing my favorite. Split 1: This level boils down to a simultaneous run where both characters must follow a mirrored path from each other. I like this idea, though it's a little stricter than I'd like for a one player splitscreen level and much simpler than I'd like for a multiplayer splitscreen. Split 2: This one is all about simultaneously (except if you're within a few ticks, the chips turn back into bombs) pressing 2 green buttons. Not too interesting but a nice concept. I find myself wishing these levels were combined into one... Split 3: Nice little avoidance puzzle! Both players have something to do and I like the layout- this one really can stand on its own. I didn't find a use for the teleport, though I didn't find myself minding either. Split 4: I feel like this one would work better as a single player level- each player is off doing their own puzzle- Chip has to move a block quickly to redirect a fireball, while Melinda has to... dodge a tank and remove two locks to have a glider reverse a force floor after Melinda finishes. I like the ending mechanism here, it's quite clever, but I don't think the level being splitscreen adds anything new to the table. So Split 3 is my favorite and the winner! What would have been really cool to see that I'm only just realizing would be: a "normal" variety level or open ended type level except there are two players for division of labor, or shortcuts, or any number of things. As mentioned, some sort of minigame or even a competitive subgame within CC2 could also have been really cool- something to bring out the multiplayer part. It might be cool to play through, say, CCLP1 Splitscreen Edition. Or it might be a terrible idea! Who knows?
  8. August 2018 Create Competition Levels

    Version 1.0.0

    3 downloads

    Included are the 5 levels by the 2 entrants. Splistville by Dave Varberg, and four levels by H2O. The only requirement was that the level had to use the splitscreen option.
  9. IHNN's scores

    CCLP4 (MS) 052: 103 (+8, b)[It Suits the Purpose] 6,093,140 (98 bolds) CCLP4 (Lynx) 052: 93 (+36, b+1)[It Suits the Purpose]
  10. IHNN's scores

    CCLP4 (MS) 039: 454 (+39, bc) [In the Walls of Gravel Castle] 6,093,060 (97 bolds)
  11. IHNN's scores

    CCLP4 (MS) 009: 247 (+1, b) [Pinball] 016: 285 (+17, b) [Reservoir Teeth] 020: 342 (+26, b) [It's No Skin Off My Frog] 6,092,670 (96 bolds) CC2 055: 84 (+1, bc) | 28340 (+10, bc) [T-N-T Time] Don't care to look up totals right now.
  12. CC2 Community Pack Survey

    Most of my feelings on this are tied to making the set compatible with the Steam workshop- and that would mean yes to leaving solutions in, though they could be remade to not include bonuses/shortcuts to leave things for the player to discover. I'm not sure how music interfaces but in the interest of keeping filesizes smaller I would be against including different music. That said, the different tracks in CC2 itself carry different tones and so preferred in-game tracks sound good to me. Filenames could be as simple as "SETNAME-LEVELNUMBER.c2m" or be "LEVELNUMBER-LEVELNAME.c2m". It doesn't really matter as long as it's standardized, which the staff would do. Likewise, I think the comments section should be used for designer comments and also staff explanations for why a level was changed, if any. RNG doesn't need to be standardized, nor does Hide Logic. If a level has a bad use of Hide Logic then it won't get through, but I'd hate to bar a clever concept that only works because the logic is hidden on principle. Another thought that crosses my mind is that we don't have to have the exact level count picked now- it seems like 150 or 200 is the consensus, so why not start at 150 and if it feels short/doesn't explore everything that "should" be explored, why not go to 200 at that point?
  13. CC2 Community Pack Survey

    CC2LP1, assuming nobody has a better idea. I'm still a fan of 150 levels. 200 feels like too many, especially when many of them would be heavier than the CC2 main game. No real reason to stick with 149 so why not go for the round number, as the amount of levels in CC1 packs hits a sweet spot. I'm inclined to say no to this unless the level has a very good reason to use CC1 boot rules and it's made clear in a hint that CC1 Boot rules are in effect. No to enforced viewport size. Some levels can work better with the smaller one- I'd say 10x10 should be relatively standard unless the aesthetics/window shopping would call for 9x9, similar to Oasis in the CCLP4 port. Likewise, no to map size limit. I imagine very few levels larger than 40x40 (which is already nearly double the play area of a CC1 level!) will even be submitted, this would rule out very long and very tall levels, rule out huge mechanisms in small play spaces... if the level is too hard due to its length or too tedious then it won't do well during set construction, and that phase will weed out levels that (ab)use the size. Again, I think these should be case by case on levels- if it's too unclear/specific then it's likely it will be weeded out early (Great Job CC2 falls into this, as though they are cool demonstrations they're fairly obtuse). And if the level goes over well but the staff deems a hint explaining things slightly would be an improvement, then a hint can be added reminding/teaching the player about block slapping. As for other standards...the main thing I can think of would be to make sure any changes made to levels are designer approved. But this has pretty much been how things have gone in the past, so we should be good there! I feel like CC2 has a lot more potential for minor changes with aesthetics/bordering/window size etc. Aesthetic balance should be done with the default tileset, as well, if necessary. edit: Inaccessible or binary choice bonus flags are fair game IMO. Submitted levels should require a recorded solution that, ideally, obtains the maximum bonus for ease of testing.
  14. IHNN's scores

    CCLP4 (MS) 094: 514 (+41, bc) [Ditchdigger] 6,092,230 (93 bolds)
  15. IHNN's scores

    CCLP4 (MS) 067: 317 (+13, b) [Nuclear Energy for Dummies] 086: 327 (+40, b) [Cyprus] 119: 520 (+81, bc) [Strandquist] 135: 387 (+18, b) [Propaganda] 6,091,820 (92 bolds) I have a b-2 route for Ditchdigger, but due to the random elements in the level I'm still holding on scoring it until I give up on the 514
×