2014 Wrapup and Looking Ahead to CCLP4

[KeyboardWielder]

... I don't see how it is possible to fill such a long set with MS-only levels. Yes, it is possible to make interesting levels with invalid tiles, like Frost Rings, but in many occasions this can be avoided ...

"MS-only" should be read as "not-necessarily-Lynx-compatible" (and conversely for Lynx-only). It doesn't mean that levels must necessarily use invalid tiles or MS-specific behavior; what it means is that a level designer need not bother about levels being unsolvable, busted or otherwise behaving undesirably in Lynx.

Designing a level for one ruleset vs both is in many ways similar to developing software for one platform vs multiple. It's easier to do it for just one with lesser experience and a casual interest. It *can* be done for both but requires more learning and attention from the designer, and imposes some restrictions. Getting a non-trivial level to work the same way in both modes is not always easy, and unlike a program, you can't conditionally define a different tile at the same location depending on which ruleset is being used. Then you either try tricks like using one quirk to balance another (e.g. as in KeyboardWielder #7 and #8) or abandon the concept. Having a CCLP which only needs to conform to one ruleset makes it easier for designers to design their levels, and also allows exploring the possibilities of that ruleset.

The bent towards MS when only a single ruleset is being considered is because there are probably more people who have played only in MS mode, and who as designers are familiar only with MS rules (even if that is slowly changing now). It's still not at the stage where a Lynx-only levelset would find as many takers. I'm not aware of Dale Bryan's 2003 message mentioned above since I joined the NG in late 2005; but I'm quite sure I remember strong hints being given when CCLP3 got going that the MS-only levels which were not eligible for CCLP3 would get their chance in CCLP4. Anyway, all that may perhaps not necessarily be relevant given that many of those designers are probably no longer active... But the point remains that it will always be more difficult and restrictive for new designers to try to make interesting CC levels if they have to get both rulesets to behave as intended with the same design.

Which is why I am leaning in favor of PB_Guy's and Miika's suggestion to have 2 versions of the set - with, say, 50 levels identical in both, 50 that are "essentially" the same - but either have differences in design in order to work the same or intentionally behave differently, and 49 that are completely different and free to explore their individual rulesets.

This way:-

- Casual designers still get a good deal. Expert designers get a deservedly better deal.

- Players who prefer only one ruleset are satisfied. Those who like both get more levels to play.

- The staff gets a humongous pool of levels to manage and has more complex decisions to juggle. But that should be the least of the concerns, and it's what you sign up for if you want to be a CCLP staff member.



- Madhav.