2014 Wrapup and Looking Ahead to CCLP4

[KeyboardWielder]

... I don't really think there are enough MS-only levels anymore to warrant an entire CCLP dedicated to them ...

"anymore"? The levels are still there, it's just their designers who aren't active ...

Ignoring the preferences and designs of the current community to honor a vague agreement made by people who aren't part of the community seems...very silly to me ...

This assumes that the posts here at CCZone reflect the opinion of the "current community" ... which is potentially true. But we should run this topic by the NG and/or have a poll to factor in more input. That said, based on past experience, I imagine that those from the "past community" would be quite happy to go along with whatever the more active part of the community is in favour of.

If we do go with 50 levels in CCLP4 are MS only, 50 are Lynx only and they swap out, voting would need 3 categories (adding confusion for voters) ...

... less levels from the largest pool would be selected ...

... the staff would have a headache with trying to balance ordering of the set with some levels not being part of either ...

- Not necessarily. Voters would simply vote for their favorite levels from the pool of eligible levels and the staff would determine the categories of the top levels.

- The actual number of levels in each category can be decided based on what's in the pool or can be tuned based on the voting results.

- The staff would first order the levels that are common to both (using these levels to direct the story), separately sort the two sets of "uncommon" levels and then sprinkle them in between the common levels (either at the same or at different slots). J.B. and I had fun sorting levels for CCLP3 - as I remember it.

What I mean to say here is that we can find creative solutions to any potential problems, should this kind of CCLP be agreed upon.

... But we need to turn our attention to what we have right now: a huge mound of levels that are cross-compatible. We can talk about encouraging designers to experiment and design for one ruleset all we want, but that's still not going to change what's in front of us at the moment. Again, I seem to recall that you were one of the trailblazers of cross-compatibility - you found a lot of enjoyment in the challenge of making ruleset-specific mechanisms work in both rulesets and encouraged many of us to do so as well. And it's partially because of that encouragement that we as designers have enjoyed making cross-compatible levels in the years since.

My opinions about the timeline and contents of CCLP4 are completely unrelated. I am not happy about CCLP4 coming so soon only because we had CCLP3 and CCLP1 (and CCLP2-Lynx) happening in rather quick succession, and not because of how many or which type of levels there are or aren't. Personally, any kind of composition for CCLP4 works for me; but I think it would be nice for CCLPs to be more inclusive of designers and levels of all sorts. Yes, I still relish making and playing levels that are cross-compatible (and cleverly done) and encourage designers to continue to do so, but I don't think that it should necessarily be a mandatory requirement.

Furthermore, having a humongous, CCLP3-sized pool of levels to manage should not be what you sign up for as a staff member. I'm sorry to be blunt about that (and yes, my experience is somewhat colored by playing literally thousands of levels in the submission pools for the last two CCLPs), but there needs to be much more definition involved in serving on a staff with respect to how much work is involved and how long it will take - at least a ballpark estimate. Otherwise, hardly anyone will volunteer, and people will start dropping off when the set's production drags on and on and on.

You are right, and it depends on what we mean by "manage". If 20,000 levels have been created and their designers have allowed them to be used in future CCLPs, and you want to be on the staff, you should be okay with that. But what the staff should do next with such a pool is ask the designers or community to decimate it - by means of nominations or limited submissions (like what has already been proposed) or initial voting by a few very active fans (like the first round of CCLP3) possibly followed by allowing designer pleas for re-consideration (like CCLP1).

I was surprised when Dale Bryan originally announced that the CCLP3 staff members themselves would be reviewing each submitted level for Lynx-compatibility, and stupefied when you first announced that you had taken up and completed this burden. Yes: No, that is not what the staff should have to do. While there are some creative, some mathematically inclined and some programming-savvy members either in the staff or in the community who can guide the staff, all these supposed problems can be managed efficiently and without the need for gruelling effort. Divide and conquer.

Interestingly, the possibility to make a blanket submission for "all future CCLPs" (something that those who submitted levels for CCLP3 long ago probably never thought of) means that the currently huge pile of levels pushing for CCLP4 will be diminished by a massive 149 levels once CCLP4 is released.



- Madhav.