Jump to content
quiznos00

CC2 Community Pack Survey

Recommended Posts

Sup Chipsterz,

There have been some short conversations about the first CC2 community pack on the Chip's Challenge Discord, mostly involving me complaining about how lackluster the main game is and how a community pack would be 10 times better. But before we even begin opening submissions, there are a few opinions I'd like to get from the community about the structure of the set and what should and shouldn't be allowed. Here are my questions, I'll post my own thoughts in a reply soon.

What should the set be named?
How many levels?
Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?
Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?
Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained?
Should any tiles or techniques be banned? Some "unsupported" tiles are innocuous, like the zero-directional block or the blank "no" sign, but hex editing can lead to weird and wild tiles, as seen in TSAlpha's Enter the Void. There also are some non-obvious techniques, like block slapping and the gimmicks in TSAlpha's Great Job CC2! levels, that may not be well-suited for an official pack.
Any other standards that should be set in place?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want this set to happen.  Hopefully submissions will open in December or January.

9 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

What should the set be named?

I would go with CC2LP1 or CC2LP2.  Keep in mind that CCLP2 was the first sequel to the original CC1 set, and CCLP1 only came much later as a "replacement" for the original.  Depending on whether we go with a replacement or a sequel-style set, either could be all right.

9 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

How many levels?

200 seems fine.

9 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

I would say no to this.  This was not used in any levels of the original CC2 sets.

9 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

I would rather have always 10x10 whenever possible.  9x9 levels could, however, be modified to be 10x10 through a "fixing" period like for CCLP4.

9 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained?

No.  Let's have a 100x100 level in the set! :chipwin:

9 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

Should any tiles or techniques be banned? Some "unsupported" tiles are innocuous, like the zero-directional block or the blank "no" sign, but hex editing can lead to weird and wild tiles, as seen in TSAlpha's Enter the Void. There also are some non-obvious techniques, like block slapping and the gimmicks in TSAlpha's Great Job CC2! levels, that may not be well-suited for an official pack.

Let's not ban blank no-signs and zero-directional blocks.  Hex edited levels should be banned.  I don't see how "block slapping" counts as a non-obvious technique, considering how Lynx play has become much more popular over recent years.  But as for other, legit-obscure gimmicks, I would say that it's fine as long as there is a lesson-style level that clearly explains the concept.

HOWEVER, I would say to ban any glitch that has the chance to be fixed in later versions of CC2, which would break the set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

What should the set be named?

CC2LP1, assuming nobody has a better idea.

49 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

How many levels?

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.

49 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

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.

49 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?
Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained?

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.

49 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

Should any tiles or techniques be banned? Some "unsupported" tiles are innocuous, like the zero-directional block or the blank "no" sign, but hex editing can lead to weird and wild tiles, as seen in TSAlpha's Enter the Void. There also are some non-obvious techniques, like block slapping and the gimmicks in TSAlpha's Great Job CC2! levels, that may not be well-suited for an official pack.
Any other standards that should be set in place?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

What should the set be named?

CC2LP1

21 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

How many levels?

While 150 is probably more ideal, I think 200 is the better option because it is in the spirit of CC2 (like how 149 was went with for every CCLP after the original CC1), and CC2 has a ton of elements to cover. I imagine the set will have a decent amount of short levels anyway so 200 should be fine, even with puzzle heavy stuff.

21 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

No

21 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

10x10 throughout the whole set.

21 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained?

I honestly don't want a 100x100 level in the set unless it is somehow a solid level. When it comes to levels with outside wire/logic gate mechanisms and such, I wouldn't include that as part of the level size unless the gameplay part of the level itself is bigger than 40x40.

21 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

Should any tiles or techniques be banned?

There's none that I can think of off the top of my head. The zero directional blocks and blank no signs should be allowed. Block slapping I think has potential to be properly introduced as a mechanic. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

What should the set be named?

I really think something like "CC2LPn" is too confusing. I suggest maybe something like "CCXn" for Chip's Challenge Expansion, which is really what CC2 is. Or how about "C3P0" for Chip's Challenge Community Pack 0:D

Anyway, we really need something more readable than a lengthy sequence of letters and numbers that looks more like someone's password than a levelset title.

1 hour ago, Ihavenoname248 said:
2 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

How many levels?

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.

Ditto. 200 was all right for the main levelset, because there were so many short levels. I expect the average community pack will have fewer short levels, so 200 would feel like a bit too much.

1 hour ago, Ihavenoname248 said:
2 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

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.

I agree; it's better if the boot rules can be consistent within any given levelset. But IMO an exception should specifically be made for any level that was designed for CC1 and then converted. It's not fair to require a CC1 designer to go to possibly enormous effort to adapt his level for CC2 boot rules, just for the sake of consistency.

1 hour ago, Ihavenoname248 said:
2 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained?

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.

Ditto and ditto.

2 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

Should any tiles or techniques be banned? Some "unsupported" tiles are innocuous, like the zero-directional block or the blank "no" sign, but hex editing can lead to weird and wild tiles, as seen in TSAlpha's Enter the Void.

Zero-directional blocks and blank "no" signs should be expressly permitted. Their functions are really just extensions of their base elements' functions, rather than the result of bugs that might later be fixed. This is why they're available as standard elements in my editor.

Other non-standard elements, including the ones in the correspondingly-named tab of my editor, and especially elements that require hacking, including "voodoo" tiles, should be banned. As far as I can see they are all the result of definite bugs, not just an extension of existing game logic. This means we cannot be sure they will continue to be supported in future updates to CC2.

The trackless railroad tile is an edge case. Like zero-directional blocks and blank "no" signs, its "behavior" is just an extension of the base element's behavior. The trouble is, its extended behavior is not actually useful for anything that any number of other elements can't do, thus its only real value is for deceiving the player with "fake gravel". Is fake gravel something we really need or want? I'm not sure, which is why I have chosen not to add it to CCCreator (though eventually you'll be able to edit regular railroad tiles and delete the tracks, if you really want to). I would however lean toward banning it in official community packs, unless someone designs a level that demonstrates a really cool, and not unfair, way to use it.

2 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

There also are some non-obvious techniques, like block slapping and the gimmicks in TSAlpha's Great Job CC2! levels, that may not be well-suited for an official pack.

Block slapping should be a pretty well-known behavior by now and is specifically designed into the game logic. It should definitely be allowed, and should even be officially encouraged so that the community has the opportunity to become more familiar with it. I would even go so far as to say the first community CC2 pack should have a block-slapping tutorial.

Most other gimmicks are, I believe, the result of bugs rather than obscure, but intended, behavior. None of these gimmicks should be allowed, for the same reason as non-standard tiles.

1 hour ago, Ihavenoname248 said:
2 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

Any other standards that should be set in place?

Aesthetic balance should be done with the default tileset, as well, if necessary.

Good thought, and agreed.

1 hour ago, Ihavenoname248 said:

Inaccessible or binary choice bonus flags are fair game IMO.

Yeah, they're bonus flags; it should not be a requirement on the designer that they're all obtainable.

1 hour ago, Ihavenoname248 said:

Submitted levels should require a recorded solution that, ideally, obtains the maximum bonus for ease of testing.

Good idea; I presume though that the solutions would be deleted prior to release of the set?

 

What about standards for hiding logic (either by the Hide Logic flag or by the level layout) and RNG mode?

Some level names (e.g. ones with question marks) cannot be used as C2M filenames. Should there be a standard for file naming that takes this into account?

Are designers allowed to submit music tracks to accompany their levels? The staff could accept submissions while reserving the right to decide whether or not to actually use them. Also, submissions could be limited to those tracks that come with the base game, or could be open to any (freeware) tracks, which could be bundled with the set.

Should the staff delete non-hint text from the level's Comment box, or replace it with their own comments, or leave it alone (maybe seek the designer's permission to delete any comments deemed inappropriate)?

If I think of anything else I'll edit this post to add it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, quiznos00 said:

What should the set be named?

Quote

CC2LP1 seems to be a good title.

 

How many levels?

Quote

200 levels seems ideal since CC2 has 200 levels originally. 149 is pretty much for CC1, but having a 149 CC2 set wont be a bad idea either.


Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

Quote

Not too sure about this one but if boot rules for CC2 create great boot puzzles, then why not?


Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

Quote

10x10 is an ideal title size. Gotta admit the longer and/or bigger the level is the more challenging since it becomes an endurance test, even if its a simple level. Got to start all over again if you die.


Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained?

Quote

32x32 since I am used to the CC1 environment. 40x40 should be used seldom cause like I said before if you die in a big/long level it becomes less interesting to replay.


 

CC2LP1 is a great idea to bring more attention to all CC2, but me personally I am leaning more towards CCLP5. Don't get me wrong I still love CC2 though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for bringing up this topic. It's good to plan and talk about this.

I would love it if we came up with a better name than CC2LP1. I like The Architect's suggestions; I'd vote for C3P0. I wouldn't mind even if we came up with something that isn't an acronym, but just a name for the pack, a bit like the voting packs we've had.

I don't want to work through 200 levels in a new community pack. If we cut it down to 50 levels, we could produce such packs much quicker. Everything about the pack would be easier, particularly for new players which I think we should focus on. I think that would be a more modern approach to game design. Even having 100 levels is a lot of levels to play through. There's no reason today to not make smaller sets, when everyone is connected to the net and can much more easily acquire new packs to play than we could thirty years ago when the model of having 140+ levels was set. I would much rather play several smaller packs than one large one, even if some where produced concurrently. I'm not sure many of you will agree with me on this, but thought I'd put the idea out there.

I don't feel we need to see CC1 boot rules. We could save some ideas and concepts for future packs. The easiest way to do this is to restrict the level design somewhat and then open that up later. It can help give each pack a different identity. The same idea applies to the consistent viewport size; maybe restrict it now to make keep the set internally consistent (though I don't think it makes such a big difference). CC2 has so many elements, we could even save a tile/theme/monster to be a focus on a later set, and not use any of them in the first one.

I don't see the need for a map size limit, though I'm not opposed to it either. However, I do think whoever is compiling the set should take into account the whole experience of playing the set. Maybe it would be fun to have level with unfamiliar dimensions. Maybe it would be really bad to have ten large levels in the set even if they all did well in voting. Some concepts just require more space, so as long as the game play is enjoyable to everyone, but does this correlate with the level size?

I think there are techniques in CC2 that would not be healthy in a community pack. We should want to keep it as beginner friendly as possible. Even requiring block slapping to solve a level should come with a clear tutorial just because there will be people who aren't familiar with it no matter how well the rest of us know it. I'd be sad if our target audience would only be us. New tiles that were not in the main game are fine if they are logical and their function is easy to guess. (Or we could restrict these and save them for later.) Any bugs that may be fixed in an update should be avoided.

Wouldn't it be great to have this pack be added to the game itself? Is that something we could possibly do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What should the set be named?
A catchy name would be good (we can do better than CC2LPx).

How many levels?
200 levels sounds fine, just include enough easy and short levels.

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?
Mixing the boot rules could be confusing for players, so I tend to no, yet it might not be necessary to categorically exclude them.

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?
Probably it's preferable for all levels to use 10x10, but again, not sure if rules regarding this have to be made.

Map size limit?
No strict arbitrary limit is required.

Should any tiles or techniques be banned?
No haphazardly chosen global restrictions are needed, as long as a level is solvable in CC2 and can be made purely with the build in game editor things should be fine in general, everything else has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Architect said:

The trackless railroad tile is an edge case. Like zero-directional blocks and blank "no" signs, its "behavior" is just an extension of the base element's behavior. The trouble is, its extended behavior is not actually useful for anything that any number of other elements can't do, thus its only real value is for deceiving the player with "fake gravel". Is fake gravel something we really need or want?

Fake gravel sounds evil.  Let's not allow this, especially since at the moment, the only way to do this is hex editing.

I agree with Jeffrey about bonus flags and aesthetic balance.

About including solutions, though...I would say to keep the solutions in the released set.  The main CC2 set has solutions included, and the workshop also requires solutions.

11 hours ago, The Architect said:

What about standards for hiding logic (either by the Hide Logic flag or by the level layout) and RNG mode?

As far as I know, hiding logic was not used in the original set.  I think logic circuits should always be visible with exceptions determined on a case-by-case basis.

For RNG mode, extra random with, once again, exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

11 hours ago, The Architect said:

Some level names (e.g. ones with question marks) cannot be used as C2M filenames. Should there be a standard for file naming that takes this into account?

How about XXX-LevelNameWithoutPunctuation.c2m?

11 hours ago, The Architect said:

Should the staff delete non-hint text from the level's Comment box, or replace it with their own comments, or leave it alone (maybe seek the designer's permission to delete any comments deemed inappropriate)?

Perhaps the comment box could include things like "additional testing and bust fixes by [person]" and "replay by [person]", as well as the set the level originally came from?  Personally I'll probably blank most of the comments in the levels I will submit.

Also, I agree with Miika about tutorials.  There should be several tutorials for obscure (and not so obscure) mechanics that have yet to be officially introduced in the original set, or the CC1 sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What should the set be named?

Please someone come up with a better name than CC2LPx. H2O is pretty good at naming sets.

How many levels?

I like 150. I felt the CC2 main game was too long, and a community pack will probably be more difficult in terms of abstract puzzle solving.

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

No.

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

10x10 for everything. CC2 maps are large enough to accommodate the larger viewport, and level sections like the end Oasis from CCLP4 could be redesigned since there is no 32x32 map size limit.

Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained?

No. Map size does not have a 100% correlation to level length, and overly long levels will be weeded out by the voting process anyway.

Should any tiles or techniques be banned?

If there is a level that requires block slapping, there should be a tutorial involving it. I would be okay with most "glitches" as long as they're self-evident and don't cause the game to crash. So all sections in Great Job CC2 except for the bowling ball on turtle glitch, monster key inventory overflow, and force floor block climbing glitch would be fine by me, but I do not intend to submit those levels for pack consideration in their current form.

For tiles, I approve of zero-directional blocks and blank no signs. I would probably ban empty railroad tracks and voodoo tiles because they seemingly have no use except for deception, except for the solid pink and solid blue tiles as they could probably have some good aesthetic use.

Any other standards that should be set in place?

RNG setting and hide logic should be chosen by the designer, even though I personally dislike the current implementation of hide logic. Music tracks should have the same cycle as the CC2 main game. Submitted levels should require solutions. Bonus flags should be able to be used in any way they wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What should the set be named?

CCLP². Or just move away from the "acronym is official levelset name" trend and name it something like "Chip's Challenge 2: CCZone Pack 1"


How many levels?

200!

 

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

No, that's just too confusing.


Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

Doesn't sound necessary to me. Although, there should be no split-screen maps unless they're included as "bonus" levels.


Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained?

A size limit would be rather arbitrary, unless it's to prevent giant maps that are a pain to solve - which would likely be filtered out in the voting process, anyways :P


Should any tiles or techniques be banned? Some "unsupported" tiles are innocuous, like the zero-directional block or the blank "no" sign, but hex editing can lead to weird and wild tiles, as seen in TSAlpha's Enter the Void. There also are some non-obvious techniques, like block slapping and the gimmicks in TSAlpha's Great Job CC2! levels, that may not be well-suited for an official pack.

Blank no-signs and unpushable blocks sound reasonable, but anything more abstract than that (especially fake gravel) should be a no-go. If this is to be a mappack for beginners and old players alike, it probably shouldn't focus too much on pedantic details like those displayed in GJCC2. Levels that rely on block slapping should clearly state what block slapping is in a hint tile
 

Any other standards that should be set in place?

It would be nice if an all-new music set was included, maybe pull tracks from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I didn't read EVERYTHING above, so I might be repeating some stuff.

Let's get creative with the name...like CC2 Ragnarok.

169 levels is my vote.

100x100 no. 100x4 sure. Limit the total area to 2000 tiles.

CC1 boots is probably a bad idea.

10x10 viewport. Let's be CC2.

I also would consider split-screen levels.

Weird tiles okay...but severly limited.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The Architect said:

Good idea; I presume though that the solutions would be deleted prior to release of the set?

What about standards for hiding logic (either by the Hide Logic flag or by the level layout) and RNG mode?

Some level names (e.g. ones with question marks) cannot be used as C2M filenames. Should there be a standard for file naming that takes this into account?

Are designers allowed to submit music tracks to accompany their levels? The staff could accept submissions while reserving the right to decide whether or not to actually use them. Also, submissions could be limited to those tracks that come with the base game, or could be open to any (freeware) tracks, which could be bundled with the set.

Should the staff delete non-hint text from the level's Comment box, or replace it with their own comments, or leave it alone (maybe seek the designer's permission to delete any comments deemed inappropriate)?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ihavenoname248 said:

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.

OK, solutions would be good for the Workshop. But full-bonus solutions should be published for the staff only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

1) What should the set be named?
2) How many levels?
3) Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?
4) Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?
5) Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained?
6) Should any tiles or techniques be banned? Some "unsupported" tiles are innocuous, like the zero-directional block or the blank "no" sign, but hex editing can lead to weird and wild tiles, as seen in TSAlpha's Enter the Void. There also are some non-obvious techniques, like block slapping and the gimmicks in TSAlpha's Great Job CC2! levels, that may not be well-suited for an official pack.
7) Any other standards that should be set in place?

1) I think the set should be named CC2LP1 or CC2LP2, since either name is simple and communicates what it means (A level pack for Chip's Challenge 2!)  I slightly prefer CC2LP2 to make it clear that it's a "sequel" to CC2's main game and not a "replacement" like CCLP1 was (unless we intend it to be!)

2) 149 (or close to it) makes sense to me.  As much as I wouldn't complain about more levels, I don't think it makes sense to build a set that's larger than a CC1 community level pack from a pool of levels that's much smaller than the CC1 level pool.  120 might be a good number.

3) Only if there's a good reason, and if there's an indication of this in each level that forbids boot dropping (perhaps a hint, or an agreed-upon symbol like a "no boot" tile surrounded by walls near the start of the level)

4) I'd prefer 10x10, but would be willing to make exceptions if there's a good reason.  Still, most levels that would want the 9x9 view for whatever reason could probably be redesigned to use 10x10, so I'm not sure if there is such a "good reason".

5) I think I'd like the longest levels in the set to be about the length of the longest levels in official CC1 sets.  Map size is not always a perfect indicator of map length, so there might be levels larger than 40x40 that still fit the expected length.  (Especially levels with lots of offscreen logic.)  I think we should let the voting process sort out the "good" large levels (the ones that do something creative with the space) from the "unnecessary" large levels (the ones that just exist to pack multiple levels' worth of content into one).

6) I'd prefer to ban any tile that can't be produced by the official CC2 editor without glitches.  Just to ensure people who use the official tools have the same capabilities as everyone else, and aren't confused by glitch tiles.  (The game has enough complex interactions without taking into account glitch tiles.)  Further, I think unintuitive "nice job CC2" interactions should be at least frowned upon, unless explained in the level that uses them.  (I realize that "unintuitive" is kind of subjective.  I'm thinking of things like pushing a block against a force floor slide to "nail" yourself up the slide, or using an equipped hook to somehow redirect a monster.)

7) Try to make some easier levels and some harder levels using as many different new tile types as possible so that the staff can build a "difficulty curve" for each?  (Not limited to exploring one new tile type per level, of course.)  Borders on all levels unless it makes thematic sense not to use them?  (Thin walls can go with everything now, so there's no excuse for skimping on them due to lack of space. ;) )  I think ports of CC1 levels in general should be valid candidates for this level pack, but NOT ports of levels that have gotten into a CC1 level pack.  I'd encourage recorded solutions on all submitted levels, but we shouldn't require them to include the max bonus.  (Especially since some levels may be designed to have an extremely difficult to obtain max bonus that's even beyond the designer's capabilities.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What should the set be named?

 

CC2LP1?

 

Quote

How many levels?

 

100 or 200.

 

Quote

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

 

I vote... no. We need to be consistent.

Quote


Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

 

Nah, either one is fine. It depends on the level and let the level designer choose.

 

Quote

Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained?

 

Any level that is too long or too tedious will fail in voting. Lets not put a hard limit on it.

 

Quote

Should any tiles or techniques be banned? Some "unsupported" tiles are innocuous, like the zero-directional block or the blank "no" sign, but hex editing can lead to weird and wild tiles, as seen in TSAlpha's Enter the Void. There also are some non-obvious techniques, like block slapping and the gimmicks in TSAlpha's Great Job CC2! levels, that may not be well-suited for an official pack.

 

We should decide this on a case by case basis for each level rather than blanket rules. In general, every available level should be able to be placed in the CC2 editor.


 

Quote

Any other standards that should be set in place?

 

Not anything that isn't already obvious like a good difficulty curve!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with CC2LP1 tbh. Maybe it could have two names: a standard one and an official one / a subtitle.

Trackless railroad: if you (or a monster) drop a railroad crossing sign on it, you get stuck, which means you can't leave a boot there like you can with, say, water, and other monsters won't die in it. Nothing else can really do that. The closest i can think of are flame jets and entering a normal track the "wrong" way, but they have significant differences. It'd be very situational, but i think it could be used in a good way.

I don't think potential for abuse is ever a valid reason to ban something.  Just because most levels with it are bad doesn't mean we have to exclude the good ones. Even if the latter category doesn't exist, we can never really know that beforehand. Besides, voting will take care of that. I will agree, though, that anything that may be patched out later shouldn't be allowed.

Hidden logic: it was fine for official CC1 sets, so i don't see a reason to avoid that here. However, hidden buttons that otherwise would be visible to the player (as opposed to being in an off-screen mechanism, for example) should be banned because that may or may not get changed in an update.

I'm inclined to say no to CC1 boot rules, but i think there's too much that can be done with it to just exclude it.

More thoughts later.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have any thoughts about these things?

1. Warp exits

2. Multiple hints

3. Lesson levels

4. Cyphers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unfamiliar with Warp Exits so I can't speak for those.

Multiple hints should of course be acceptable. :) and lesson levels it depends on the approach this new pack will take. If the staff wants it be "a better CC2" then yeah lessons! Even if that's not the direction the set is going to take I still think it could benefit from some that the main game didn't really introduce (the hook immediately comes to mind) and also for block slapping!

Cyphers seem kind of pointless since you can freely skip levels in CC2. There's no passwords in the game anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about "CCtwoLP1"? Or CC2LPone? Maybe write one number as a word so the title isn't a mess of numbers.

150 levels sounds good.

Multiple hints are fine.

I don't really see any great need for cipher levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Flareon350 said:

I'm unfamiliar with Warp Exits so I can't speak for those.

Multiple hints should of course be acceptable. :) and lesson levels it depends on the approach this new pack will take. If the staff wants it be "a better CC2" then yeah lessons! Even if that's not the direction the set is going to take I still think it could benefit from some that the main game didn't really introduce (the hook immediately comes to mind) and also for block slapping!

Cyphers seem kind of pointless since you can freely skip levels in CC2. There's no passwords in the game anyway.

I agree with all of this (Y)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, geodave said:

Anyone have any thoughts about these things?

1. Warp exits

Warp exits have to do with the structure of the set as a whole, and thus would be up to the discretion of the staff. (I don't see any need for them, but would not be opposed to them either.)

19 hours ago, geodave said:

2. Multiple hints

Definitely allowed.

19 hours ago, geodave said:

3. Lesson levels

We need a few, for concepts the main game did not really teach.

19 hours ago, geodave said:

4. Cyphers

Pointless as a means to hide passwords; but levels with structures that form text can be fun and should not be barred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2018 at 9:07 PM, geodave said:

Anyone have any thoughts about these things?

1. Warp exits

Secret exits that skip ahead a number of levels could be a substitute for secret hints, since there's no password system.  I like it!  We'd just need to come up with a way for the staff to know that one of the exits in a level is intended to be a secret exit...or the staff could add them where they feel they're appropriate, like for some of the secret hints in CCLP4.

 

NOTE:  I don't know all the details about how secret/warp exits actually work...in any case, if we include one, we might want to place a hint next to it explaining that the player has found a secret exit so they aren't surprised when it does something unusual.

Quote

2. Multiple hints

It's not too hard to make and the CC2 main game did it, so sure, why not?

Quote

3. Lesson levels

Probably for some of the more complicated elements.

Quote

4. Cyphers

Unnecessary if we go with secret exits.  And passwords don't exist anyway, so any "cypher" we could try to include would have to be less about unlocking a future level and more about a hint towards solving a future level, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×