Thanks for keeping us informed on the plans.
1) I like this idea of narrowing down the levels to vote on. Even compared to the CCLP3 process, we now have a clearer goal in mind and you guys are able to get rid of more levels than was possible last time had it been done that way. The lists for 'marked for elimination' and 'white list' sound like very useful tools to ensure that some levels don't slip by on accident. Like I know in my set there are some poor levels that shouldn't be in the voting really, but if I update them they might have a better chance, and you guys can't obviously evaluate if that will happen or not.
2) I'm starting to like the idea of voting level packs more than I did at first. I still don't like the idea that they are all released at once, nor that they are released individually. Could they be released in waves? Like a third of them at a time? What if I have time to play and vote only towards the start of the process? Or if you release most of them at once, randomizing the order they appear in sounds like a good idea (and you don't have to name them pack1, pack2.. but could go with some kind of code words that don't have an inherent ordering built in, like pack_orange, pack_monkey and so on). (And how about using the file extension ccl?)
In about a month I think I could evaluate about 100 levels if real life does not present large obstacles, but even more if the levels are familiar from earlier. Which is why I'd prefer packs of fifty, but more than one of them available if I have the time to work on more, but also would value the flexibility for you guys of not releasing them all at once. And last time the list of levels that had the least reviews/votes was a very useful tool, so hopefully that idea will be utilized again.
3) Agreed that one rating is enough, and you guys can evaluate the difficulty and appropriateness.
4) This idea is essential to making this set work. I would have suggested about 200 levels, but 250 sounds even better! And if a unique concept that fits well, like a hole filler (as in a certain type of lesson level), you could go even further down the list. Hopefully we will still see some voting for certain spots in the set where needed, like CCLP3 had for the start and cypher levels, as these were a fun way to feel part of the process in addition to the main voting pool.
Keep up the good work! And a warm thank you in advance too!
-Miika
1) I like this idea of narrowing down the levels to vote on. Even compared to the CCLP3 process, we now have a clearer goal in mind and you guys are able to get rid of more levels than was possible last time had it been done that way. The lists for 'marked for elimination' and 'white list' sound like very useful tools to ensure that some levels don't slip by on accident. Like I know in my set there are some poor levels that shouldn't be in the voting really, but if I update them they might have a better chance, and you guys can't obviously evaluate if that will happen or not.
2) I'm starting to like the idea of voting level packs more than I did at first. I still don't like the idea that they are all released at once, nor that they are released individually. Could they be released in waves? Like a third of them at a time? What if I have time to play and vote only towards the start of the process? Or if you release most of them at once, randomizing the order they appear in sounds like a good idea (and you don't have to name them pack1, pack2.. but could go with some kind of code words that don't have an inherent ordering built in, like pack_orange, pack_monkey and so on). (And how about using the file extension ccl?)
In about a month I think I could evaluate about 100 levels if real life does not present large obstacles, but even more if the levels are familiar from earlier. Which is why I'd prefer packs of fifty, but more than one of them available if I have the time to work on more, but also would value the flexibility for you guys of not releasing them all at once. And last time the list of levels that had the least reviews/votes was a very useful tool, so hopefully that idea will be utilized again.
3) Agreed that one rating is enough, and you guys can evaluate the difficulty and appropriateness.
4) This idea is essential to making this set work. I would have suggested about 200 levels, but 250 sounds even better! And if a unique concept that fits well, like a hole filler (as in a certain type of lesson level), you could go even further down the list. Hopefully we will still see some voting for certain spots in the set where needed, like CCLP3 had for the start and cypher levels, as these were a fun way to feel part of the process in addition to the main voting pool.
Keep up the good work! And a warm thank you in advance too!
-Miika