Jump to content

_H_

Members
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by _H_

  1. Created a new account, and with this it seems to work
  2. Yes, and the login worked fine last week however not anymore today And a completely different question, is there some structure to the four different packs, e.g. levels are grouped by certain types or difficulty or are they more or less completely random?
  3. No voting seems to be possible - just get a unknown login error
  4. Just had a quick look at the code, the syntax should be file[tab]number but the program has several flaws, it doesn't change the level numbers (so the output will not be correct), for the input it doesn't check for empty lines, so it will try to open a file it can't at the end of file if it is, as in most text files, in it's own line, and crash (just insert something like if pair[0]=="": continue in line 15 to avoid it), and it opens all input files multiple times for no apparent reason... This should work properly: (in Lua) function levels(s) local function g(i) return s:byte(i)+s:byte(i+1)*256 end local n, p, t = g(5), 7, {} for i=1, n do local a = g(p) table.insert(t,s:sub(p+4, p+a+1)) p = p+a+2 end return t end if #arg~=2 then io.stderr:write("Usage: "..arg[0].." input output") os.exit(1) end local inp = assert(io.open(arg[1], "r")) local dat = inp:read("*a") inp:close() local a = {} for line in dat:gmatch("[^\r\n]+") do local t = {} for w in line:gmatch("%S+") do table.insert(t,w) end local inp = assert(io.open(table.remove(t,1), "rb")) local ls = levels(inp:read("*a")) inp:close() for _,x in ipairs(t) do table.insert(a,ls[tonumber(x)]) end end function b(n) return string.char(n%256,math.floor(n/256)) end local out = assert(io.open(arg[2], "wb")) out:write("\xac\xaa\x02\x00"..b(#a)) for i,x in ipairs(a) do out:write(b(#x+2)..b(i)..x) end out:close() and you can specify multiple levels per set per line and use arbitrary white space as separator. CCLP1.dat 123 2 JoshL5.dat 9
  5. Firstly, thanks for your elaborate answers. Secondly, yes I was a bit disappointed about the video, and not just for my levels, as in some of your let's plays you seem to have so much more motivation and enthusiasm, but I can definitely understand that after loosing a the video and have to rerecord it, frustrated about loosing the first, perhaps already a bit tired and under time pressure, it is not the same, so don't worry about it. Thirdly, yes I would have ranked the levels differently e.g. I would have chosen Bowling in the Sewer from Jeffry which would have won the competition, or Eraser Rush from Chipster, because it was more fun to play (even though I don't like the speed boots) than Twice the Eyesight, but luckily everyone likes different levels, and that assures a wide variety in levels
  6. For sure, and it's good, otherwise everything would be pretty boring. That's correct to a certain extend. Yellow teleports are a relatively tricky element in the sense that you can place them in a lot of different locations, which makes them complex. However there is not a lot of knowledge required. Yes, you can pick them up, but if you did not know this before playing this level, you will realize this pretty quickly by just stepping onto the outer one by chance. And if the player tries to place them onto a custom tile, he will realize that that's not possible. But I definitely disagree with some kind of test of knowledge, even if everyone should be familiar with the mechanics of teleports and partial posts in general (and Trans-Pachipic Partnership does require these for example as well, just additionally even the order of teleports,...), but there would be no point in introducing them to a player before he knows blue and red teleport mechanics anyway. Yellow teleports are an interesting and to a certain extend complex game element, which allows nice puzzles, but it's not a test of knowledge about a lot of cc2 mechanics at all. Yes, and it allows therefore exploration if you want to Absolutely no trial and error is required to solve the puzzle, you can see every detail without stepping onto a single push up wall. If you are not a computer and try thousands of possibilities a second, you should definitely think logically how to set things up, and not try to brute force something with trial and error. If you seriously would call this just solvable with trial and error, you would have to do this for every sokoban, or probably even for every level in cc... But if you really want to write that much about game elements, you can enlighten me to which does Trans-Pachipic Partnership teach the player? And I seriously don't know, is teeth mechanics, or is it the swivel/revolving doors tutorial you mean I failed with Unraveling Mystery? You are forgetting the part which makes this otherwise good level into something I can't like that much - the teeth puzzle at the very end where you can easily die, which should have imo been it's own level, and not a part at the end of a really long level. But You Can't Teach an Old Frog New Tricks has a lot of overall complexity and is a long level, even if you know exactly what you are doing. The comparison lacks there a bit Avalanche is again a long level, repetitive and some parts tedious. Every single step I would indeed refer as simple, however again, it's a difficult level because it has overall complexity and is not linear. If it would just be linearly pushing more and more blocks from one room into the next, I would indeed say it's simple as a whole. Correct, each step of figuring out where to place the yellow teleports for the two required tasks (yes the level is really short) is the puzzle and the whole point of the level. There is hardly any overall complexity (at least if you don't try to not open the doors and just bridge down...). There is no logic in this statement But yes if you mention Joshua Bones violation of the rules, you have to do so for Tyler as well (no time limit). But how to deal with them is up to Josh anyhow. Neither I nor you nor chipster made any tutorial levels in the strict sense, even everyone sent three levels, because it was not required to do so. (and on top Trans-Pachipic Partnership is the least tutorial like of your three, and choose that one) And levels as Wrong of Way or Conveyor Reversal do include puzzles as well, so that's not it either, you can apply knowledge to a problem. So you might think, the easier the better, but Where There's A Wall didn't win, it got the last place (but not having to think doesn't seem to make a level bad, as shown in Blocksmith or How to Itemdrop Like A champ). The shorter the better doesn't work either as again with Where There's A Wall or Unraveling Mystery shows, and the same for size. So there is no criteria for what levels are ranked how, so it's inconsistency I'm speaking of. I have to admit, I would have no clue how to rank the lesson style tutorials where you don't have to think, and therefore are completely boring and pointless to play, compared to the other levels... I think you get the point about this, but I'm not complaining about any rankings. I don't like that the my levels which do focus on game elements as required, are made bad as strict tutorials, which was never the intention (but again, they are not alone in this regard). And perhaps even more importantly, I can totally understand that Josh want's to keep the videos reasonably short, but he did not solve any levels for the first time in the videos (and if that should not be true, why play some the first time and some before,...), so why not solve all the levels before and show the solutions to all the levels? If he solves e.g. Teleport Convolution or just shows the solution or whatever (and all the levels can easily be solved in way less than five minutes if you know what you are doing), and points out thoughts about the level and that it is too difficult to be considered for this competition, it would have been totally fine with me, and I probably wouldn't have written much about it, but instead in two of my levels he seems to run around a bit bored to kill time without me seeing any intention of him solving the levels in the video. (or in the worst case scenario, if he can't be bothered to spend some minutes solving them, just leave the levels out, or show the solution in a separate video with some thought on them (here perhaps with some real first time comments, if he hasn't seen it before) if he doesn't want to spoil the solutions in the general video, but just running around stupidly that's for sure the worst decision...)
  7. No reason to apologize, at least not to me, since I don't care about the ranking at all, but it's inconsistent, and different from a ranking I would have made. I can't remember a single level I criticized for being too hard puzzle wise or because it's not being clear on what to do. On contrary, hard puzzle levels are the ones I generally rate the highest, because I like to play them the most! What I don't like is trial and error, hidden information or crazy timing and crazy monster dodging, and I think I'm pretty consistent and clear on the feedback in this regard.
  8. Your description of the starting post is definitely very clear that you expected lesson style levels, especially because your example Block Tug shows this clearly, and describes every step you have to take via hints. No wonder that you are ranting in your video about the first levels do have so many hint tiles, and that's as well the reason why Trans-Pachipic Partnership won I guess Teleport Convolution You don't know what this level is supposed to show off? Since there is the word teleport in the title and there are yellow teleports in the level, it might have something to do with them... And even if it is hard to believe, I wasn't kidding in the description I sent you, it's about yellow teleports. But after showing no intention of even trying to use the teleports or to solve the level after a bit more than four minutes you spent more than enough time on this? At least you showed off more than enough that Melinda can't swim without fins... Phantoms You can kind of see that this level is about ghosts? I definitely would not have thought that someone could figure that out. But at least I learned something new from you - stopwatches will kill you in the game, which is kind of neat!? - even though at the start of the level you stepped on a toggle clock without dying and you obviously didn't realize the point of the time penalties. Unraveling Mystery After four minutes of stupid cooks because you did not think about what to do you got the idea of that one so you don't need to spend a lot of time on this? Again you don't show any intention of even trying to solve the level, and you didn't even bother finding out what the puzzle of the level is about. Using a tileset which doesn't show you push up walls is of cause helpful. However I'm definitely impressed how many levels you solved after not even thinking about two of mine or giving up after seven minutes on Bowling in the Sewer (the imo best level from Jeffrey, and definitely an easy level), you really overcame your initial reluctance to think and solved some puzzles e.g. in the Wrong of Way - at least you try to give the impression as if you are doing so, even if you played most levels including this one before, and just improved your times... But a bit more serious again, to conclude the post, I thought about writing about all the levels after you put them up your video, but I think it would be pretty pointless, since I disagree with you on almost every single entry, but after you put so much aversion against my levels it feels like I have to defend them a bit, so the most important part is, if you wanted to get lesson style tutorials, you definitely should have made this clear at the start, and not wrote the complete opposite... I really don't understand the hate for Teleport Convolution and to avoid misunderstandings, it's not supposed to be an easy lesson style tutorial and it was never intended to be as you never wrote that the entries should be that (and your reply to my email in which I stated that it is an advanced level based around yellow teleports and not a classic tutorial, was that this is Awesome! - so I was completely clueless that you did expect something complete different), and to be honest, I don't see how Trans-Pachipic Partnership is all of this in your opinion. Regardless just to clarify, you wrote the level must remain pretty simple as a whole, and that's definitely the case even for my first entry, pick up the yellow teleports (I really did not think that someone could miss this, especially since it is in the title and what else could you do with yellow teleports), use them to blow up the bomb with the ant, and use them again to bridge with the block to the exit (and yes, to double the bonuses there is a fourth puzzle there).
  9. 8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28+29+30+31+32+33+34+35+36+37+38+39
  10. NEW LEVELS - against all probability new stunning levels were added UPDATES - around half the levels got small visual updates, mainly to improve their identity. Generally gameplay is not effected by them, however in some cases minor impacts do exist, e.g. simplified wiring which might make puzzles clearer and in one case bonuses are evened out as well...
  11. _|_|_|_| _|_|_| _| _| _| _|_| _| _|_| _| _| _| _| _| _|_|_| _|
  12. Almost all useful logic circuits are conditional on their input, so yes as you can see most circuit as a conditional expression. I'm not quite sure what you mean with otherwise connects to another button. You cannot turn on or of logic gates, however you can set their output to a high signal or a low one. Not a hundred percent sure what you are describing here. But if I guess correctly, you either want three outputs, where two are set at random and Chip has to set the third signal to high to get to the exit, or you want one of three outputs set, if Chip triggers the corresponding event to a certain output, another one is chosen at random and Chip has to set a corresponding signal again to finish the level. In the first case just connect both inputs of each of the latches to get a one time use too set a signal and connect their outputs with two and gates to have the condition all three have to be high. If you tried to describe the second behavior, it's a bit trickier, since you have to reset the states (or duplicate the circuit). To do this, connect the inputs of the latches via or gates to get essentially a SR-latch. Now you have one input to set a state and one to reset it (as e.g. in the level SET AND RESET). The set connection has to be connected to your random events, the reset one should be triggered from an and gate which gets its signal from the corresponding output of the latch and the circuit Chip is triggering (e.g. a button). The same connection can trigger future events, as e.g. a second random set. To determine what should occur, use a counter, in case of just a few events, you can use the counter tile, otherwise to make the circuit more generally applicable, build a binary counter out of the gates... B)
  13. I'll try to give you a short overview over the elements and their mechanics The logic gates are AND, NAND (not and), OR and XOR (exclusive or) will give you based on their inputs on the side (in the following table x and y) the result (marked as r) at the top - T stands for true or a high signal F for false or a low one: r: AND (*) x y r (T,T,T) (T,F,F) (F,T,F) (F,F,F) r: NAND x y r (T,T,F) (T,F,T) (F,T,T) (F,F,T) r: OR (+) x y r (T,T,T) (T,F,T) (F,T,T) (F,F,F) r: XOR x y r (T,T,F) (T,F,T) (F,T,T) (F,F,F) Except for the exclusive or there are no surprises as the words are used the same manner in everyday language. For XOR remember, that if both inputs are the same, the output will be false and if they are different, the result will be true. The not element negates a signal, this means False will give you True as a result, and vice versa. Each of the gates has a delay of 1 tick to it, this means, the output will not be instant. If you e.g. realize a diode by putting two not gates after each other, there will be a delay of two ticks compared to the reference signal. The latch gates are a bit trickier - they are essentially what is more well known as D-latches (compared to a D-flip-flop which is edge-sensitive it is level-sensitive, sometimes called transparent D-flip-flop), this means they will change their state according to the data (D) input as long as the enable (E) input is high. You can use them to store the input state. D E Q (F,T,F) (T,T,T) (x,F,Q previous) To get more detailed information about all the logic gates, I recommend using the internet and a search engine of your choice. If you search for the electronic real world counterparts you will find a lot of detailed explanation (much more than I or anyone else could ever write here) and examples of using them B) (Keep as well in mind, wikipedia is never the worst starting point...) If you have any specific questions about their behavior especially their mechanics within CC2 I and I guess a lot of other members are glad to help...
  14. To complete a level, you have to exit with as many players as are initially in the level, this includes characters on clone machines. To have a playable Chip or Melinda, you need to clone once. To finish the level without the playable character going into an exit, you need to clone a second time, either in a different direction and therefore onto an exit, or transport the new character in a different direction than the initial clone, e.g. by switching a force floor direction With 3 playable players however you can change between the different players, and the one on a clone machine will be in the rotation. If you select this Chip or Melinda as a player, you will be stuck...
  15. In my opinion every set needs some kind blob level, I mean no matter, it doesn't matter, OK I failed, it doesn't matter how much blobs are hated, every set has to showcase blobs in some way. And me personally, I try do use blobs in the most least tedious way possible.
  16. Today I thought, let's play some To100T in cc2 To get a feeling for the set, I chose to play some levels at random at first... For most I had a lot of fun, but e.g. SWIP-SWAP seems at least on first glance to be unsolvable due to the different teeth mechanics compared to cc1 (the angry teeth will drown at the blue tanks part). So I wonder how thoroughly the levels were tested when porting them
  17. Thank you for your feedback The question I answered via private message since it might end up to be a bit off-topic. BLUE SKY AND FIRE right now is indeed just a really short concept level with hopefully an aha moment for the player. Maybe I'll add something more to it at some point, however maybe I'll leave the level as is since extending the concept might either end up in a level where you have to run fast / precise timing or a puzzle which is busted by doing so because of the delay between the movements, but I'll definitely look into it. Hope you like BAR and AROUND THE WORLD as well after solving them completely...
  18. Just by itself it might not have been the worst level in the set, but arguably it wasn't a good level and some of the levels which are not that fun to play at least fulfill a purpose in the set - this one didn't. If you dislike certain levels, let me know, there might be design flows I'm not aware of in some, which I hopefully can fix, or if the concept is crap, I can potentially replace them. However there will always be a worst level in the set as long as there are levels in it, and even if I see the merit of a flawless yet empty bundle, it's justifiable to retain some suboptimal levels Generally I think it's easier to learn from what someone didn't like in a level than what she or he did like, that's one of the reasons why my feedback might sometimes feel overly critical... The first few levels in the set are supposed to be relatively easy, anyhow there is no difficulty curve in the rest of the set. The reason behind this is partly that I don't like bunch of difficult levels clumped together, since it can get frustrating, partly because the idea of simpler breather levels scattered across the set (this level is an example of this) has some benefits to it, and e.g. in J.B. Lewis' let's play of cc2 at least it felt like he was thankful for such, sadly I don't have the experience myself for them, since I remembered most of the levels surprisingly well from playing them probably around 15 to17 years ago, also I might have left out some level I didn't have the best memories of, as well it's sometimes hard to judge how obvious or maybe convoluted the solution to a certain puzzle is, since if you know the clue, it's always easy... Nice to hear, especially since the first feedback on them wasn't that great B) Yes it's strict, but since in cc2 you can hold two directional keys at once to make a turn as soon as the line in which you are moving is blocked, you don't have to be overly precise most of the time. So it might not be everyone's concept / level, but hopefully at least for some a fun to play one Most behaviors in the game I would consider game mechanics, even if they might be not too natural or feel a bit like glitches. In the level RAIL BOWLING in cc2 initially the same mechanics worked with trap controls as well, but was patched out, but left for flame jet controls So it is a bit of a gimmick level, but that's fine I hope...
  19. Yet another update, to version 2.1 which compared to 2.0 fixes two small busts in THIEVISH GHOST and IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE Additionally I deemed CLEMENTIA one of the worst levels in the set and therefore substituted it with an equally easy but hopefully more fun to play level - WATER LILIES A puzzle I designed quite some while ago is now added to the set in the level INFINITE MOTION. It's probably not a lot of fun to solve, but on the other hand pretty unique, therefore if you hate it, let me know and I'll remove it again B) With SO MUCH a second bonus level was added as well. It consists of several block pushing puzzles I initially designed for the set, which didn't find any place in any of the regular levels for some reason (probably too easy )...
×
×
  • Create New...