CC2 Community Pack Survey

[ncrecc]

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"

<br style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#353c41;font-size:14px;" />How many levels?

200!

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

No, that's just too confusing.

<br style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#353c41;font-size:14px;" />Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

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

<br style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#353c41;font-size:14px;" />Map size limit? Namely, should the 40x40 limit from the CC2 main game be retained?

<i>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 </i>

<br style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#353c41;font-size:14px;" />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<br style="background-color:#ffffff;color:#353c41;font-size:14px;" />


Any other standards that should be set in place?

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

[geodave]

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.

[Ihavenoname248]

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?

[The Architect]

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.

[The Architect]

Is anyone tracking responses? I could maintain a spreadsheet if no one else is.

[ajmiam]

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.)

[Lessinath]

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!

[random 8]

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.

[geodave]

Anyone have any thoughts about these things?

1. Warp exits

2. Multiple hints

3. Lesson levels

4. Cyphers

[Flareon350]

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.