CCLP1 Voting Pack News and Releases

[Bowman]

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

Lol, shut up.

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.

Cool, I liked that level. So, was that one of yours Tom? Cuz I didn't know for sure but that was my guess from the beginning.

[Bowman]

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.

Amen.

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.

I just used the block that seemed to serve no other purpose to block the balls and make my wait shorter (or at least make it seem shorter because at least I was doing something and not just sitting there.) It took me a little while to figure out that's what the block was there for. Once I did, this didn't bother me much.

~Bowman

[jblewis]

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?

I've unlocked the threads so people can make these suggestions within the threads themselves. I think this may be a better idea for a couple of reasons: [a] instead of sending these suggestions privately, we can discuss them as a community and see if other people have similar thoughts, and the voting interface would become less of a scrolling nightmare to go through.

[ajmiam]

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

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

[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 >_>

[jblewis]

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.)

Yes, these principles would be mentioned either in lesson levels or (more likely for the case of partial posting) in a non-lesson level that teaches the concept. The idea of voting for a level in the context of an appropriate place in the set applies here as well - for the sake of voting, we'll assume that these concepts are already taught to the player.

I'm so glad you've brought up the whole idea of the "underdog" candidate. I feel like I've been dishing out a lot of 5s to these levels as well, not only because I love them but also because, frankly, I'm afraid they'll just get overlooked. I hope we're not alone in this. If CCLP3's voting results are any indication, the universally lauded levels tend to be those with some sort of gimmick that would render them inappropriate for an early spot in the set. This is pretty much the reason why I advocated for the staff to have a larger role in deciding what ultimately gets inducted into the final product and use the voting as only one piece of the decision-making process, because if this weren't done, CCLP1 would just most likely become "CCLP3-lite." Similarly, I also feel like it's easy (at least for me) to vote smaller, not-so-interesting-but-still-incredible levels a 4 out of 5 out of instinct. But if everyone did this or voted lower, these levels would definitely have a hard time making it into the set because they'd be up against all the levels with an average rating of above 4, even though they would be deserving of inclusion in the initial tier of levels. So I pretty much agree completely with you on your rating rubric.

[Bowman]

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 >_>

Wow. I'm glad someone else put a lot of thought into this too, probably more than I did.

That's the beauty of voting on these levels: everyone has their own opinions and, in the end, we have a levelset voted on by the community that is as diverse as everyone's opinions and that reflects what the community at large enjoys to play. My vision of what CCLP1 should be is not what it's going to be. Nor should it.

The reason I'm very strict with my 5 star rating is because it is 5/5. It can get no higher. And it's hard to find a "perfect" level that satisfies all my expectations. Not that I have a checklist. I'm picky when it comes to CC, that's just me.

I also try to vote on how I felt the first time I played it. If I loved a level years ago, and now it's gotten old, I know that it feels really good the first time you see it so I still vote it high. I'd like to think I don't consider what other people would vote on a level, simply because I don't know whether a level will be overlooked or not. I just vote on how I feel about the level.

It was cool to see how someone else thinks about their voting. Thanks for the response, ajmiam.

And I have rated quite a few levels 4 star (very good) btw.

[jblewis]

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.

[jblewis]

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.

Amen to that.

I haven't posted my favorites from the first five packs yet, so I'll go ahead and name some levels that haven't been mentioned yet (or at least much) that I absolutely fell in love with:

- Chip Kart 64 (Cardboard #12): This one is just so much fun. I've played it multiple times - not even seeking to optimize it - and every time it just gets better and better. The shape of the "track" is fairly basic, and although I feel like it could have had a "U" shape reminiscent of the classic SNES Mario Circuit 3 from the original Super Mario Kart, it accomplishes its purpose extremely well and gives the player quite the adrenaline rush while boosting across the force floors. The "shortcuts" are also a wonderful touch and are a brilliant shoutout to the rubberbanding that can often take place in an actual Mario Kart race. Highly recommend this one.

- Blobs on a Plane (Cardboard #16): There are some brilliantly audacious levels that just work, and this is one of them. There's plenty of gravel to use when collecting all the chips, so the actual blob dodging isn't terribly cruel, and the moment when you let them out of the plane brings such a rewarding feeling. Bravo on this.

- A-Maze-Ing (Flouncy #28): I feel like we have a huge bevy of inventive maze levels in the running, and it would be such a shame to see them fall by the wayside just because they're mazes that we can look at in the editor to find the solution. A newcomer doesn't have that luxury, and finding his or her way through these labyrinths can definitely be a memorable experience. (This same comment can also be directed at ChipWeave, A (Mostly) Simple Maze, and Cross Over.) This level in particular is quite fun and would fit right at home in the opening tier of the set. Not only are the four "quadrants" fairly colorful, but they're also exhibit a rather humorous, not-so-cruel red herring in the form of keys that can't be collected unless the mazes are "broken" with the proper equipment in the center.

- Exit Garden (Giraffe #37): This is a classic example of how paying attention to aesthetics while designing can make all the difference. Imagine if the exits and doors throughout the map were just walls - it wouldn't be half as fun to play or look at! The teeth dodging is made much more interesting by the simple but somewhat tricky puzzle of where the door leading to the one reachable exit is, and thankfully, it's not terribly hard at all. This level also strikes an ideal balance between open space and confinement with respect to defining a maze-like layout and ensuring that there's enough room for dodging. Overall, this one is a winner.

- Do the Trick (Shampoo #6): This is probably one of the best introductory "thief-steals-your-boots-so-you-have-to-go-back-for-more" levels I've seen, if not the best. It's straightforward, fun, and is exemplary in terms of containing the gameplay to just the right length. Four boots is enough for one level that's meant to be introductory; just imagine if there were two or three times as many swaps to go through. It wouldn't be nearly as wonderful as what we're given here. And what we're given here is indeed wonderful. The trick with using the flippers while you still have them is also a welcome touch and, once again, is a twist that manages to avoid being cruel.

- Corral (Shampoo #33): Yes, I mentioned this in my "20 Levels..." blog post, but I thought it was worth mentioning again. I feel like blob-centric levels have gotten such a bad rap since the original game's frustrating dodging/patience challenges, but this one is a lot less frustrating and includes a fun strategic element: using arsenals of blocks to box blobs in or as shields. I can think of a lot of players who'd have fun with that outside of the goal of exiting, but beyond that, the level itself doesn't feel stale. The rooms have a variety of sizes, which make the smaller rooms a lot more intimate (yet not hard) in terms of blob dodging and boxing. Overall, this level is very enjoyable to play and just screams CCLP1 with its wide open spaces and ample room for error.

- Chance Time! (Lipstick #9): We've seen quite a few "Choose Your Own Adventure"-style levels over the years, but what about a level in which the choices are made for you? This level pulls it off in style with each path opened in front of you, and the result is nothing sort of brilliant. Even optimizers shouldn't find this terribly mean, as there aren't too many "branches" to worry about.

- That's Life (Lipstick #26): I've been mainly naming a lot of easy levels, but I think this more difficult one deserves a mention. 5x5 matriced layouts of 5x5 rooms are nothing new, but the navigation of this level is just a blast. The standout element here is the way changing the toggle doors can alter the gameplay of a single room. Even when you revisit a room, one toggle switch can make a huge difference with respect to how you interact with the monster inside the room, and I must commend the designer for pulling that off without resorting to cheap trickery.

- Automatic (Caution) Doors (Lipstick #32): Good gravy, I love this level. It's not only one of my favorites in this pack - it's also one of my all-time favorites in the 1,600+ levels we're evaluating, and that is saying a lot. The gimmick here is fairly simple: push red buttons to go through toggle door "turnstiles" (for lack of a better term) while they're toggling for 2.6 seconds. The fun part is that although most of the actual challenges along the way are simple itemswapper/chip collecting tasks, the way they're integrated into this main gimmick is seamless. Especially worthy of note are the various ways that new paths can be opened up by reaching the turnstiles more quickly. Some of these mechanisms are simple but so effective, like opening a door that can be walked around but allows the player to pursue a more direct path, or an ice slide that allows the player to zip right over instead of walk. As far as capstone challenges toward the end of the set are concerned, you can't go wrong with this one.

[Bowman]

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.

I agree with your sentiments. Some levels I have voted really high even though were super easy because it did such a good job of what it set out to do. A level from Cardboard comes to mind: Chip's Most Dangerous Enemy. I think that's what it's called. It was a superb lesson on teeth monsters.



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.



No offense to any who liked that level but this was just my opinion of course. I don't know who made either level, btw.



~Bowman

[jblewis]

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.

That's an excellent point, but I think there's also something to be said about levels that could do well outside their "stated" purpose (for instance, a lesson level). I completely agree that "Right-Roving Monsters" wasn't suitable as a lesson level, but I think it has potential elsewhere later on in the set based on what it is, though it still isn't in my personal top tier.

What I meant by "in the context of what it sets out to be" was more or less directed toward evaluating levels in the context of their difficulty and style of gameplay rather than comparing them to levels that are completely different. It's also a reminder I've had to keep telling myself - to be less selfish about how I vote when considering what this set is supposed to be. Okay, maybe "selfish" is kind of a harsh word, but here's what I mean: I think we as a community are a hard bunch to please because we are veteran players who have seen so much from this game. We so easily forget that the levels we find "dumb" or simple, even if they're well-designed and well-calibrated, would probably blow away a lot of first-time players, who ultimately comprise the audience for whom this set is intended. I've been trying to resist the urge to vote based solely on what I find interesting and put myself in their shoes instead. It seems like there are just certain game elements and types of levels - like mazes - toward which we tend to carry some sort of stigma as experienced players. The same goes for easier levels: sadly, I haven't seen a whole lot of easy-difficulty levels get 5s in the voting, and the only explanation I can think of for this is that when we judge them, we have a certain type of level in mind already to which we're comparing them, and most likely, that level is an orange to our evaluated level's apple. And chances are, people playing this game for the first time would actually find both types of levels fascinating. The same principle applies to levels that actually make good use of blobs, blue walls, invisible walls, or other elements that, despite any potentially negative experiences we've had with them in the past, are still a part of the game and deserve to be properly experienced by beginners.

For instance, I've given "Chip Be Steady" (Lipstick #50) a 5 out of 5 rating. It isn't a mind-blowing level that left me with a sensation of "Whoa!" when I solved it, but in the context of being a maze in which you had to avoid touching toggle buttons and a level that beginners would find inventive, it succeeded. The only other levels I'd even be thinking of when looking at it would be similar mazes in which the player isn't allowed to touch the "walls," not the campaign level with every game element included that I may also enjoy too. The reason why this one in particular stood out was because of its symmetrical "border" with the colored doors and teeth waiting to be released, which made it look a lot neater than similar levels.

I guess I'm just a bit concerned that we're going to end up with homogenous voting results like CCLP3's if the current voting trend keeps up. Despite the fact that CCLP1 is designed to accomplish what CC1 did, I fear that if we were approaching CCLP1 voting from the standpoint of having played CCLP2 and CCLP3 only and were to encounter the exact CC1 levels that a lot of first-time players found memorable, we'd probably downvote all of those levels too just because we didn't find them "interesting enough" compared to other levels that are completely different and ultimately aren't proper bases for comparison. And while I certainly understand that we're also trying to exceed the standard that CC1 set, it would be a shame to do so at the expense of variety.

Flouncy #15: Frozen Maze is busted.

Already noted - thank you, though!

On another note, we are so close to getting 10 votes on every Flouncy level. Let's see if we can release the next pack - the Tungsten Pack - by tonight! Who's in?