CC2 Community Pack Survey

[mobius]

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.

[andyrkki]

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.

[mobius]

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.

[Indyindeed]

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

[ncrecc]

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.

[mobius]

I kept forgetting to add:

in regards to random settings (and things of that nature): any setting should be allowed. I don't think level design should be dictated by optimization. [I could go into a long argument about how at that point it's no longer true "optimization" to a certain regard....]

[Bowman]

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

Sup Chipsterz,

Sup.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

What should the set be named?

I am of the unpopular opinion that we should just continue the naming trend for official sets and name it CCLP5. I see no problem with this if the original community sets went from being MS-only to MS-and-Lynx with CCLP2 and 3. That change wasn't earth-shattering and this shouldn't be either. In essence it's still the same thing: a community-created official levelset for CC. It's just a naming system, anyway.

Any future CC1 sets could then follow with CCLP6 or wherever we'd be at.

It's whatever version (CC1 or CC2) the community prefers at the time, though I don't see a need to go back to CC1 for official sets since CC2 can pretty much do everything CC1 can and more. But I understand why people like to play CC1 still.

But as this suggestion is not likely to be met with general approval, I would suggest maybe "Chip's Challenge 2 Community Pack 1" or CC2: CP1.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

How many levels?

We always stayed consistent with 149 before because that's how many levels were in the original game. Since there's 200 levels in CC2, I like the idea of 200 levels.

But if we're going to go with 150, we might as well just stick with 149.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

No.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

10x10. All for consistency.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

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

I don't think there should be a limit. Anything too outrageous shouldn't get voted in anyway, but I'm excited to see what the community could come up with in this regard. I can see a really long but narrow level that just goes on and on. Or like a "world" map that has a lot of space in between "towns." But since CC doesn't have a checkpoint system, it can't be too challenging. But as a rule, I don't like putting a limit on creativity here.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 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.

I don't know very much about these techniques but I agree with what the Architect said. Basically, I'm for anything that he puts in his editor, but against something that requires hex editing.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

Any other standards that should be set in place?

Not really standards but, I don't think a redoing of CC2 is necessary (like CCLP1). I'm all for exploring new concepts by means of new lesson levels though, or a rehash of some basic techniques that maybe could've been explained better. This is another reason I think 200 levels would be good.

These are just some of my opinions. I figured I'd let my thoughts be heard. But there were a lot of good suggestions I read. So whatever final product comes out, I'm sure it'll be in good hands, and I will like it. ?

[Sharpeye468]

Formalizing my answers that I put in discord already.

What should the set be named?

CC2LP1

How many levels?

200

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

No

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

Both

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

Yes

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. / Any other standards that should be set in place?

0-Direction Block - Yes

Blank No Sign - Yes

Misc Hex Editing - Yes

Require Solution - Yes

Inaccessible Flags - Yes

Allow Hide Logic - Yes

RNG Setting - Any

Level Music Submissions - Yes

Keep Level Comment - Yes

[ncrecc]

This doesn't seem to be clearly decided on yet: will the set have custom music provided? And if it does, will designers be able to associate individual tracks with their levels, or will we make a set tracklist of 30-or-so songs to be shared by the levels? I've seen a few people expressing their opinions on this, but there doesn't seem to be a clear argument made for either side.

Personally I think we should scrape together a tracklist and give the songs generic tags like "action", "slow", "retro"... etc. then hold a post-voting phase where a group of curators assign tracks to levels (while honoring the requests of those who submitted the levels, if they are open for comment).

[Flareon350]

I don't play CC for the music so I don't care either way.