Quote:Complete and utter guess here, but that wouldn't be a Tyler level by any chance?

Quote:

As for Ladder To Heaven, yeah you can descend from either side of the ladder. Not a bust, intentional, and allows room for error and extra tactics/optimization in the CCLP1 version.

Quote:

45 (Compact), unlike other ultra-simple levels, has practically nothing going for it; I don't rate many levels 1/5, but I can't justify anything higher.

Quote:I do not approve of a 30-second wait at the beginning of every attempt at 14 (Freedom or Die), also considering some potential death traps later on in the level. I will vote this level much higher if this complaint is addressed.

Quote:I had suggested a blank line under each level on the voting pages as a way to make notes on any level, suggest name changes or other tidbits. It would be easier than looking up past posts through the threads. Any thoughts on this?

Quote:In Ladder to Heaven, I was able to start up the right ladder and then descend through the left one. Not sure if this was intended, but I liked that it was possible.

Here is my personal criteria for voting levels:

5 Stars: A perfect CCLP1 level. Has to be in the set (In my opinion)

4 Stars: A very good CCLP1 candidate. Perhaps has only one issue that prevents it from being 5 stars

3 Stars: An average CCLP1 candidate. Nothing is wrong with a 3 star level and it wouldn't be a shame if one made it in.

2 Stars: Not necessarily a bad level but not appropriate for CCLP1. I would be disappointed if it made it in.

1 Star: No way. Doesn't necessarily mean I hated the level, but I probably did.

Not to impose my system on anyone else but I did a lot of thinking to come up with something that I was comfortable with. "Is it a 2 star or 3 star level if it's just alright?"

What is your system for rating levels?

Number of 5 star levels so far: 1

~Bowman

5

4

3

Quote:One question I do have: how should I rate levels that require full knowledge of how teleports work? If there's going to be a level explaining partial posting and the reverse-reading-order rule, that might cause me to rate some levels higher than if not. (For instance, one of my own levels requires the player to know reverse-reading-order to avoid death traps. If we won't have a lesson explaining this, I will vote my level and any similar levels a 1, otherwise I will probably vote them higher.)

Quote:Only one 5-star level so far? Interesting...I've voted dozens of 5s. And 4s. And a smaller but still significant number of 3s, 2s, and 1s. Well, we're all different, I suppose.

Anyway, here are my (rough) criteria (lengthy explanations, so click to view):

5



<div class="ipsSpoiler" data-ipsspoiler="">

[Click to Show Content]

Any one of the following:

• The level is solid (no significant design flaws) AND highly original AND nice to look at AND a joy to play.
  
• The level is solid AND gave me some of the most fun I've ever had playing CC, and I can tell the level designer put effort into it, even if the aesthetics OR the originality (but not both) wasn't knock-your-socks-off great.
  
• "Underdog candidate"--The level might ordinarily get a 3 or 4, but it's solid, fun, shows effort on the part of the creator, AND demonstrates an important concept in a nontrivial, intuitive way. However, due to its relative simplicity OR the fact that it doesn't seem spectacular until you really start playing it, AS WELL AS the fact that it didn't get a lot of pre-voting hype, I am afraid others will overlook it. Thus, I give it a little boost to compensate. Usually, levels I put in this category are what I think are the best levels for the 10s-early 30s. We do, after all, need levels in these slots, but since levels with this difficulty aren't usually huge epic memorable adventures or priceless works of art, I fear others will have a hard time voting them highly. So I try to help out.
  

​

4

[Click to Show Content]

A 4-star level includes the characteristics of a 5-star level, but...

• Just wasn't quite fun or memorable enough for me to consider it one of the best.
  
• Included a small design flaw, such as a brief but unnecessarily tedious section.
  
• I found it to be only moderately fun, but that was clearly solely because the level's genre clashed with my own tastes; it really wasn't the designer's fault, and it deserves not to be dragged down unduly by my vote.
  
• Had a "trick" just slightly too far into the level--a situation where I failed when I could have found the right course of action if I'd looked ahead a little bit, but I was not given adequate warning I'd need to do so.
  
• Or, had a trick that I was only able to avoid because of my experience playing CCLP3 and custom sets, one that would almost certainly catch a beginner the first time. But the trick doesn't cause too much lost progress, and may even be a good learning experience, otherwise this would get a much lower rating.
  

3

[Click to Show Content]

• The level was based around a concept that, while enjoyable for a moment, wasn't really challenging or intricate enough to stand on its own, OR the concept WAS good enough to base a level around, but the level was far too short and didn't live up to potential.
  
• The level was enjoyable in its own right, not highly flawed, but not original enough to be memorable. (Nuts-and-Bolts style hodgepodge levels don't necessarily fall into this category, since even they tend to include a couple original mini-challenges or just new takes on known ideas.)
  
• Penalty: If it's very likely you'll boost into the back end of a monster in MS even if you're being careful, the level can't get above a 3 because of the inequality.
  

​

2

[Click to Show Content]

• The level -- even if it demonstrated an original concept -- just wasn't fun to play and clearly wasn't made with a lot of effort. (Sadly, I think of one of my own levels as the platinum meterstick for this category.)
  
• The level had an egregious, unneeded unfair moment (lucky timing or potentially fatal guesswork) that was likely to result in more than about 20 seconds of lost difficult progress or a couple minutes of lost easy progress (Note: A level can have unfair moments and still be a 3, 4, or 5 if they won't likely result in too much lost progress, or if they are needed for the level to work but don't make things too frustrating or confusing.)
  
• The level -- while good -- is borderline too hard for CCLP1.
  
• The level is just tedious.
  
• The level is frustrating and not satisfying to finish (usually, because it's medium-to-long and it's highly likely you'll die near the end)
  
• Penalty: If you need to dodge monsters with 0 ticks margin for error more than twice, or have to do so after making significant progress, then the level's rating is capped at 2.
  

[Click to Show Content]

• The level has an egregious, unneeded, unfair moment very late into it OR has one or more such moments that will likely take many tries to pass.
  
• The level is just needlessly or excessively difficult, so much so that I could not beat it in multiple playing sessions, and don't think beginners would like getting stopped by it either.
  
• The level is trivially solvable and doesn't offer any originality or nice artwork. It's pointless to play, being too easy and unfun to serve even as a "breather" level. (Thankfully, I haven't run into any levels in this category so far.)
  
• The level is SO HARD ALL THE TIME that I can't even survive for 10 seconds in it, and have to wonder how it got into voting. (Yes, I DID find a level like this, no I will not name names.)
  
• My Biggest CC Pet Peeve Penalty: If the level involves 50-50 monster timing, it cannot score higher than a 1. 50-50 monster timing is when you need to let a monster out of a 2x1 room. It's difficult to time, even if you're looking carefully, and I think there is no reason this much precision should ever be expected of the player. (Note: Grabbing a single chip being circled by a single bug is technically 50-50 in terms of when it's safe or when it's not, but it's far easier IMO since you can time it by focusing on one of the four corners. It's much harder to focus on one of two points than one of eight. So single bug and single chip does not count, as long as it isn't repeated too many times.)
  

​

Note that nothing said above is set in stone. Not even the penalties; they're just rules for which I haven't found any exceptions yet.

One question I do have: how should I rate levels that require full knowledge of how teleports work? If there's going to be a level explaining partial posting and the reverse-reading-order rule, that might cause me to rate some levels higher than if not. (For instance, one of my own levels requires the player to know reverse-reading-order to avoid death traps. If we won't have a lesson explaining this, I will vote my level and any similar levels a 1, otherwise I will probably vote them higher.)

Edit: fixed those messy extra bullet points >_>

Quote:This level succeeds where so many others fail based on the simple concept of "more stuff does not necessarily equal a better level" - call it smoke and mirrors if you like, but this level achieves a lot by doing very little, and that has to be commended.

Quote:I'd been weighing various methods of how to vote and create a rating scale (much like ajmiam's) before voting started, and in the end, I came up with something much like his. However, there's a bit of an addendum I've added to mine, and I thought it was worth sharing because it's a reminder I've had to nail in my head since it's so easy to compare apples with oranges, and I fear that I'm not alone: a level deserving of a 5 should be exemplary in the context of what it sets out to be. I say this because after looking at CCLP3's voting results - and seeing how CCLP1's have been coming together so far - it seems like the levels that tend to hold the most universal appeal tend to fall into one of the following categories: [a] an epic campaign level, a level with a lot of variety, or [c] a level that truly "reinvents the wheel" or introduces some sort of revolutionary concept. We tend to stay away from or vote not quite as favorably on levels that feature some degree of homogeneity because, well...they just don't seem as interesting as levels that are "clever" or contain every game element. The irony is that if we were to assemble a set that featured only levels that fell into those three above categories, the set itself would be quite homogenous, which is pretty much one of the biggest qualms people have had about CCLP3.



So, from this point on, I'm trying to fight the urge to give that really-simple-and-easy-level-that-may-not-be-as-interesting-as-the-epic-campaign-level-but-is-still-the-best-level-it-could-be less than it deserves. It's not fair to compare levels that are two completely different types of animals with each other when both could be absolutely incredible in their own right, and I'm going to try to remember that as I continue to go through the packs, whether I'm dealing with a tutorial level, a beginning-tier challenge, a middle-difficulty romp, or a tough-but-fair puzzle.

Quote:On the other hand, if I feel a level set out to be a lesson level fails at its objective, I will rate it lower than if it didn't give the impression of being such a level. Case and point, Right Roving Monsters. I thought it had the goal to be a lesson level but was all over the place, not having any clear objective besides fireballs and paramecia. And there were some concepts that were a little advanced for a lesson level, even for beginners as a group, I thought. Not to mention it took up so much space and did so little with it.

Quote:Flouncy #15: Frozen Maze is busted.