Jump to content
quiznos00

CC2 Community Pack Survey

Recommended Posts

I would like to throw in some responses to previously suggested standards:

 

The comment field could maybe include information on how well the level placed in voting, but regardless of what they contain, they should always preserve what was originally in the comment (if anything).

Levels should be placed in folders labelled 1-20, 21-40, etc. and should be named XXX-[original filename].c2m where XXX is the three-digit level number.

Music should not be picked for levels until it's agreed on as to what music tracks will be shipped with the level pack. Broad descriptions like "it should have a fast-paced action tune" should be honored, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ncrecc said:

The comment field could maybe include information on how well the level placed in voting, but regardless of what they contain, they should always preserve what was originally in the comment (if anything).

Even something deemed unacceptable by community standards, e.g. profanity, racial slurs, etc.? (Not that I'm suggesting community members would submit levels with such comments, but any standard should be prepared for as many eventualities as possible.)

3 hours ago, ncrecc said:

Music should not be picked for levels until it's agreed on as to what music tracks will be shipped with the level pack. Broad descriptions like "it should have a fast-paced action tune" should be honored, though.

I like this idea. (Y)

Share this post


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

Even something deemed unacceptable by community standards, e.g. profanity, racial slurs, etc.? (Not that I'm suggesting community members would submit levels with such comments, but any standard should be prepared for as many eventualities as possible.)

Admittedly, I hadn't thought of that situation. I suppose anything that wouldn't be allowed on the forums shouldn't be allowed in comments.

Share this post


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

What should the set be named?

CC2LP2, not CC2LP1!

On 10/1/2018 at 10:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

How many levels?

200

On 10/1/2018 at 10:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

Absolutely not.

On 10/1/2018 at 10:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

10x10

On 10/1/2018 at 10:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

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

No limit, because this should be CC2LP2 and not CC2LP1. If a set like the latter is ever made, it should definitely have the 40x40 limit though.

On 10/1/2018 at 10:42 PM, 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.

Anything that the official editor supports should be fair game. Anything that cannot be done with the official editor should be banned.

On 10/1/2018 at 10:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

Any other standards that should be set in place?

There are some decent suggestions in this topic, but I've run out of patience with the quote handling mechanism here so I'll just leave this at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2018 at 4:41 PM, Flareon350 said:

I honestly don't want a 100x100 level in the set unless it is somehow a solid level.

Just for clarity, this essentially means I'd like a size limit, at least for the first CC2 pack. 60x60 sounds big enough. 

Maybe for future CC2 packs this could get lifted but for and specifically for the first CC2 pack, I think a size limit should be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Set Name

CC2LP1 sounds perfect to me. Giving it a different, non-numbered name would make it seem like a custom set and not an official set. Granted, many CC1 custom sets are numbered, such as the JoshL series or the Ultimate Chip series, but many CC2 sets seem to not take this approach. Therefore, I believe having a name like CC2LP1, or at least a name with the number 1 at the end, will do.

 

Number of Levels

I think following the trend of the CCLPx sets is the way to go here - 149 levels per set. I generally don't agree with the people who say CC2LP1 should have 150 levels, but to be honest, I'm not sure why. Perhaps I've just grown too used to the 149 level trend. I would say 200 since that's how many CC2 had, but while I used to think this back when CC2LP1 discussion first began, my thoughts have changed. 200 levels is far too excessive, especially for only the first pack when not many CC2 custom levels are available.

 

CC1 Boot Rules

I say we disallow levels with this rule. Having some levels with the rule and some levels without only get confusing, especially since not a single level in the main game used the CC1 Boots rule.

 

Viewport Size

Keep the viewport at 10x10 for consistency's sake. The main game's inconsistency with viewport sizes is very annoying and I think that having a consistent viewing area will be much more satisfying. If a certain level requires the 9x9 viewport to keep certain things out of sight, perhaps the level may need some slight tweakage. For example, if you don't want the player to see the border or another area, just expand the map a little bit and you can have a 10x10 viewport without problems - as long as the original designer gives permission, of course. Plus, the majority of levels built for CC2 use a 10x10 viewport anyways, save for maybe a few CC1 ports.

 

Map Size

This is a tough question. I'd say something bigger than 40x40 is okay once in a while, and if it's just for aesthetic purposes it's certainly fine. However, we should make sure we choose only a few levels larger than 40x40, perhaps 5 at most. If the actual area where most gameplay occurs is less than 40x40, then I see no reason to bring the level down just for that reason alone.

 

Zero-Directional Blocks

These blocks may not be possible in the standard editor, but they are possible in CCCreator and are surprisingly useful. They can be used as walls that only bowling balls can destroy, and they can be used to create awesome aesthetics - as seen by the center area of Repeaters in Walls of Chip's Challenge. Therefore, I will allow them - but only if a proper tutorial is provided on how they function.

 

Blank No Signs

Fill in the Blanks from TSAlpha is a level that deserves a chance in CC2LP1, and the fact that it uses a tile that can't be placed in the ingame editor shouldn't bring it down. Similar to the zero-directional block, though, these should only be used if a proper tutorial is provided on them.

 

Other Hex Edited Tiles

This is where things get complicated. Some hex edited tiles can be used to the designer's advantage, like seen in Enter the Void from TSAlpha; but some can be used to mislead the player, like fake fire tiles or fake gravel tiles. Overall, I generally think my answer to this question is no because of the negative effects that come from hex editing tiles.

 

Solutions

The levels should all come with built-in solutions. Uploading a levelset to the Steam Workshop requires every level to have a solution, so if we plan to upload this there, this step will be required.

 

Inaccessible Flags

I see no good reason to disallow inaccessible bonus flags. If used correctly, they can create a very interesting aesthetic. Maybe I should design a level with unreachable bonus flags as an aesthetic...

 

Hide Logic

The Hide Logic option can be used to create some very cool mechanisms without putting everything underneath canopies and having wire tunnels everywhere. An example is the first level I posted in Discord, Slimepocalypse, where I used the Hide Logic option to hide inverters that were cloning blobs every 2 ticks. Therefore, I believe the Hide Logic option should be allowed.

 

RNG Setting

The RNG setting should either be 4 Patterns or Deterministic. In the spirit of CC1 Lynx mode and the original Lynx game, there should be no true RNG involved. If a level has lots of blobs, walkers and green teleports, I shouldn't feel discouraged from optimizing it just because the RNG is set to Extra Random.

 

Level Music

How about we meet in the middle and replace the Scott Joplin MIDIs, but keep the Windows music? In addition, the Windows music doesn't loop correctly in the main CC2 game, so I'd like the music to alternate every level as it does in the original. Perhaps that sounds like a minor nitpick, but I've seen some far nitpickier claims in this thread.

 

Level Comments

I don't really have a preference about retaining level comments, personally. Even the main CC2 game has comments on some levels, so why not?

 

I hope my feedback will be useful in the construction of the final set. Perhaps I'll even get a few levels in myself... Who knows?

Edited by Indyindeed
misunderstood the last column lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What should the set be named?

I personally think "Chip's Challenge Level Pack Alpha" could work.


How many levels?

200


Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

Definitely not.


Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

10x10


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

I don't think a limit is necessary, especially if a lot of the space is used for logic mechanisms.


Should any tiles or techniques be banned? 

I like the blank "no" signs. I am not exactly sure what the zero-directional blocks would be used for though. It's probably best if the set isn't glitch reliant. I could support block slapping being utilized if the technique can be introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 10:39 PM, Indyindeed said:

CC1 Boot Rules

I say we disallow levels with this rule. Having some levels with the rule and some levels without only get confusing, especially since not a single level in the main game used the CC1 Boots rule.

Viewport Size

Keep the viewport at 10x10 for consistency's sake. The main game's inconsistency with viewport sizes is very annoying and I think that having a consistent viewing area will be much more satisfying. If a certain level requires the 9x9 viewport to keep certain things out of sight, perhaps the level may need some slight tweakage. For example, if you don't want the player to see the border or another area, just expand the map a little bit and you can have a 10x10 viewport without problems - as long as the original designer gives permission, of course. Plus, the majority of levels built for CC2 use a 10x10 viewport anyways, save for maybe a few CC1 ports.

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.

Share this post


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

What should the set be named?

I personally think "Chip's Challenge Level Pack Alpha" could work.

 

CCLPα actually sounds like a perfect name, and far better than CC2LP1. I fully support this!

Though I suppose in writing we'd just say CCLPa, or rather CCLPA since the CC2 font is all capital letters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that basically anything should be allowed; if it doesn't work or isn't liked then people won't vote for it.

I say 150-200 levels. I think it was J.B. that said somewhere that you almost need that many levels just to explore all the many possibilities within the game. I thought the main game's number of levels felt good. One important thing that helps that though; is there were quite a few small levels. If the game mostly consists of large levels (which I sincerely hope it does not) then 200 will seem like far too many. Note: not that large levels are bad, but I'd like to see a nice mix of large and small. That's one thing I really liked about the main game.

Things like the directional blocks and blank no signs should be allowed but more unusual and unpredictable stuff like glitch tiles I say no, or at the very least kept to a decorative use.

I think tutorial levels ought to be made. But made with a lot of care. As I though the tutorial levels of the main game seemed a bit lengthy and tedious at times, yet having a level focusing on just one or a few game mechanics would require 20+ lesson levels. Levels focusing on several concepts each might work. If you took the lesson levels from CC1 and did it that way (continuing with the CC2 mechanics) then you'd maybe need another at least 7 lesson levels making 14 total?

Another interesting idea I had was the make a 'tutorial pack'. Which would basically be a level pack of just lesson levels, designed especially for beginners. This way you could have as many levels as you want and get as in-depth and helpful as you needed and little or no lesson levels in the actual CC2 community pack.Instructing new players to play the lesson pack first, of course.

The Warp exits concept sounds really neat (I haven't experimented with it much myself) but I think it should be an optional find/challenge.

Custom music would be really nice; it's just a matter of finding music that can escape the copyright Nazi's....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

length: between 149 and 200 levels (inclusive)
name: CC2LP1 should be a designation for it, but an alternate name is okay.
CC1 boots: yes
viewport: any
map size: any
bans: anything that's expected to be patched later should be banned; everything else is fine (with proper intros)
solutions: yes, for workshop (unless it becomes official dlc or something)
inaccessible flags: yes
hide logic: no invisible buttons please; otherwise sure
warp exits: yes
RNG setting: any
designer-chosen music: yes, unless it's an in-game track :teeth: (no preference)
level comments: keep, sans profanity and such

I don't think reducing the size of CC2LP1 will get it out any sooner; post-voting assembly, though nontrivial, was definitely not the biggest chunk of time in CCLP4's construction. That being said, i'm not opposed to going down from 200. Really, i think the size of the set should be (at least somewhat) determined by what ends up doing well in voting and how long those levels are on average.

Edited by random 8
first answer more specific

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/27/2018 at 5:11 AM, random 8 said:

bans: anything that's expected to be patched later should be banned; everything else is fine (with proper intros)
hide logic: no invisible buttons please; otherwise sure

On 10/3/2018 at 4:08 AM, random 8 said:

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.

As far as I can see, nothing is expected to be patched at all yet especially nothing which will break existing levels - in your example a new button tile which is always visible or a new semi hidden logic mode could easily be introduced without breaking dozens of existing levels, otherwise we'll end in a catch-22, e.g. what if Chip in some version will be able to go on fire tiles without fire boots... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that, but the game did get some updates earlier this year (and it wasn't all centered around the Workshop).

Edited by random 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What should the set be named? I'm fine with a recognizable name like CC2LP1.

How many levels? No strong opinion on this, but somewhere between 149 and 200 sounds good.

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules? I tend towards no, but exceptions could be made for levels that make good use of it.

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)? Using both in the same set is fine with me.

Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained? Allow levels up to 100x100. Levels that overstay their welcome by being too large will be voted out anyway.

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. Don't ban tiles that can be useful (this includes the zero-directional block and the blank "no" sign). Stuff that appears to be bugged or has very obtuse behaviour should probably be avoided. I haven't actually played any custom levels that have voodoo tiles, but they probably go in this category.

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. Maybe we should stick to tradition and keep that no levels should require block slapping to be solvable. For bonuses and easter eggs, every sensible technique should be allowed. Levels that require blowing up clone machines and putting different things on them to be solvable should be allowed since CC2 has a couple of them. Maybe we should even allow splitscreen levels. I don't know enough about warp exits to comment on that. Multiple hints is fine.

Any other standards that should be set in place? In general, I'm in favour of having fewer constraints so that people can be more creative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rubenspaans said:

Maybe we should stick to tradition and keep that no levels should require block slapping to be solvable.

Two Sets of Rules requires a block slap to solve in Lynx.

Beyond that, I'm in the camp that as long as block slapping is mentioned as a thing that can be done before it's necessary to solve a level (which, I expect most levels would not require block slapping unless they're specifically built around it) then it's fair game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to allow blockslapping; remember it was an original feature of CC1. It was only a *mistake* that it was not included in MS; thus everyone at the time became familiar with the game without it. I'll admit it doesn't have  a huge range of uses but some interesting ones. I think it should be allowed.

Also something I didn't really make clear; if we're not going to have tutorial levels I would lean toward 150 levels total, but if we do; I would lean toward 200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify my view on the set name: remember that CCLP1 was made first and foremost as a replacement set for the freely licensed Tile World.

So if the final name does turn out to be CC2LP1 it would seem to permanently close the door to a CCLP1-type set in the future, which may well be needed as the official CC2 levels are no less copyrighted than the CC1 ones were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another quick point:

I still agree with what I said earlier about not allowing most or some hex editing that allows for very glitchy behavior (like enter the void stuff, except perhaps for decorative purposes). But maybe it's a little fast to not allow ANY glitchy/hex editing at all. Perhaps there are as-of-yet undiscovered interesting tile possibilities via hex editing? (Besides the directional blocks and no signs that is). As already pointed out however; much like the red key/clone machine bug these are in danger of being patched in the future. Even blank no-signs may be in that danger? Although it seems like Chuck and them visits now and then and consider these things so maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2018 at 8:51 AM, andyrkki said:

Just to clarify my view on the set name: remember that CCLP1 was made first and foremost as a replacement set for the freely licensed Tile World.

So if the final name does turn out to be CC2LP1 it would seem to permanently close the door to a CCLP1-type set in the future, which may well be needed as the official CC2 levels are no less copyrighted than the CC1 ones were.

Then maybe we should make our first pack a CCLP1-style set. Just because CCLP1 came after CCLP2 and CCLP3 does not mean the same should apply to the CC2 official packs.

And to clarify on what I thought about the music: I said that designer-chosen music is okay as long as the Windows tracks are kept in. In other words; replace the 26 tracks used by the main game, but leave the CHIP01 and CHIP02 mp3s for people who play with those music settings. That said, I suppose I would be fine just disconnecting my headphones :teeth:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should aim for making the pack more like CCLP2, then we can try for a "legal alternative" pack once we have more experience with ranking CC2 levels and appropriately compiling them into a set. Plus, in the excitement of submitting CC2 levels to the first ever community pack for it, people might neglect that it's supposed to be beginner-friendly, and then trying to make an "easy" set out of every approved submission would result in either a big difficulty curve as all of the more difficult levels are fit in, a weird mish-mash of difficulty levels like the official CC1 set, or most of the highly rated levels being discarded in favor of consistent difficulty (which might not go down too well). I'm not entirely sure how CCLP voting works, however, so maybe some of that has already been solved or accounted for.

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

×