For anyone who is on the CCLP4 staff

[random 8]

Having some version of CCLP4 for each ruleset is enough for me as far as compatibility is concerned. In fact, when i first solved CCLP3 #16 in both rulesets, i expected
later levels to continue utilizing ruleset-specific mechanics, and i was disappointed when i found out this isn't the case. Perhaps we can have more of this in CCLP4? Then again, it probably won't matter since almost everyone designs their levels to be indistinguishable between the two rulesets.

[jblewis]

Having some version of CCLP4 for each ruleset is enough for me as far as compatibility is concerned. In fact, when i first solved CCLP3 #16 in both rulesets, i expected
later levels to continue utilizing ruleset-specific mechanics, and i was disappointed when i found out this isn't the case. Perhaps we can have more of this in CCLP4? Then again, it probably won't matter since almost everyone designs their levels to be indistinguishable between the two rulesets.

After seeing some of the differences in gameplay on CCLP2 levels when CCLXP2 was released, I think being more lenient on "inequalities" between rulesets may not be such a bad idea. The main reason we instituted this policy for CCLP3 was to prevent significant differences in difficulty that could affect voters' assessments on those levels, but more minor differences and "forks" like those in CCLP3 #16 could be fun to have in a CCLP, providing designers actually make more levels like that. In the end, I think we can trust whatever calls the staff makes.

I don't believe we need to overcomplicate by having separate versions of a CCLP for each ruleset. It was necessary for the originally-MS-only CCLP2, but seeing how many people design for both rulesets these days like you said, I don't think anything more than one version of the set that works in both rulesets is needed. This is meant to be a set generally representative of what the community has to offer, after all. If the community is strongly in favor of an MS- or Lynx-only set, we can always make a separate one for the occasion.

But at least for now, based on just the responses on this thread, it's looking like most people want:

- A set that's compatible in MS and Tile World Lynx.

- A set with a fairly wide range of difficulty that doesn't quite reach the heights of late CCLP3's difficulty.

- A set that doesn't exclude levels without borders.

I think we can work with this for now. Why don't we go ahead and just open submissions and see how much we get?

[chipster1059]

I think we can work with this for now. Why don't we go ahead and just open submissions and see how much we get?

Already? I thought we could wait for more people to give their opinion.

[Flareon350]

I'd say submissions shouldn't officially open till the start of 2015. That's my opinion.

[Ihavenoname248]

I'd say submissions shouldn't officially open till the start of 2015. That's my opinion.

I was thinking they should wait to officially open until 6 months after CCLP1's release (so late late September), but that wasn't taking into account CCLXP2. In light of that, I'm somewhat inclined to agree, except, what harm does opening submissions earlier have?

[BigOto2]

I think we should wait a bit before opening submissions just to make sure we're not on some sort of "CCLP4 high" at the moment. Take some time for us to simmer down and maybe figure out what to tell people when designing levels without blindly making a "CCLP4 submissions are open!" post.

For example, one thing that seems popular is the idea of non-homogeneity, as in levels that aren't all "a little bit of everything" but that have specific twists to them, like in CCLP2 but without invalid tiles.

Right now I'd offer late September or October for a submission opening. Don't want to rush it, but don't want to leave it to the point where everyone's just waiting. Sure, we may have "just" released CCLP1, but it takes a few years for submissions to be voted on.

[jblewis]

For example, one thing that seems popular is the idea of non-homogeneity, as in levels that aren't all "a little bit of everything" but that have specific twists to them, like in CCLP2 but without invalid tiles.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think these sorts of levels were actually much more popular during the CCLP3 era - and it was their saturation of the voting pool that encouraged a lot of difficulty one-upmanship among designers that at least helped lead to what CCLP3 eventually became. Since CCLP1 submissions opened, we seem to have shifted into a new era where concept-based levels and homogeneity combined with unique aesthetics are now much more popular. I think part of this is just the need for simplicity in CCLP1, but the rise of more casual gameplay and CCLP3 difficulty exhaustion have been factors as well, especially since new sets like JoshL5, The Other 100 Tiles, JBLP1, and what's been released of NeverStopGaming exhibit these characteristics.

Right now I'd offer late September or October for a submission opening. Don't want to rush it, but don't want to leave it to the point where everyone's just waiting. Sure, we may have "just" released CCLP1, but it takes a few years for submissions to be voted on.

It sounds like many commenting in this thread have suggested waiting to open the submissions, and I understand that. I didn't mean to suggest that we rush anything at all - actually, far from it. My main concern is that since we're no longer making a specific-purpose set like CCLP1, it would be very easy to fall into CCLP3-esque set-wide homogeneity if we aren't careful about keeping an eye on [a] how many levels are in the submission pool and what kinds of levels are in the submission pool. Instead of making a one-time call for levels like we have in the past, the "call for submissions" really should be a much more flexible, changing prompt that takes these two variables into account, starting with what we have on hand. It's kind of like retail inventory management, and it's especially important in light of the amount of levels we already have that couldn't make it into CCLP1 due to its specific purpose. For example, just looking at what sets would most likely be submitted for CCLP4 (some of which are repeats from CCLP1), we really need more easy levels after so many were inducted into a generally easy set.



That's really all I was suggesting - [a] being more cognizant of what we're dealing with and <strong> encouraging those who are currently designing to design toward what's underrepresented in the submission pool, particularly if their goal is to get something in an official set. </strong>

[Ihavenoname248]

For example, just looking at what sets would most likely be submitted for CCLP4 (some of which are repeats from CCLP1), we really need more easy levels after so many were inducted into a generally easy set.

The set I've been working on is probably about a half-step up in difficulty from CCLP1 on the whole, and since 1) the levels didn't exist at CCLP1 voting and 2) I wasn't even around the community then, along with some other levelsets, I think that easier levels should be mostly covered.

One thing we could encourage is for people to build sets with a difficulty curve in mind, so that we have a wider range of difficulties going into the pool rather than most levels being a "step above CCLP1 difficulty".

This is exactly what I meant-there's a definite curve and progression that both starts and ends about a half-step up from CCLP1, with harder challenges sprinkled throughout. At least, as the designer that's my impression, how well that translates remains to be seen

[BigOto2]

One thing we could encourage is for people to build sets with a difficulty curve in mind, so that we have a wider range of difficulties going into the pool rather than most levels being a "step above CCLP1 difficulty".

[geodave]

The biggest issue I will have is not submitting levels I don't think are particularly good.

What I mean is, I certainly have made some loser levels (Circle, among others), but it's much more difficult for me to tell which levels the community will like and vote in (ITP anyone?) and those that I think make a better fit (Waterwings for example).

If I extrapolate this to other designers (and based on what I've seen it's fair), we will end up with wayyyyyy too many levels again, most of which we've already seen a couple times.

So, any ideas on how to a) stimulate level design and b) reduce re-admission of crappy levels?

After all, crappy is in the eye of the beholder. And yes, A Puzzle will be submitted for CCLP4.