17-Oct-2015, 9:30 PM
Quote:It seems that every discussion about CCLP4 gets a lot of activity over its first few days and everyone gives their opinion. Then the discussion gets forgotten for a few months and no progress is made.
Agreed. Which is why I've been trying to encourage anyone who's interested to step up and make it happen. Personally, I don't have the time to spearhead CCLPs these days, and I'd rather enjoy one upon release without all the knowledge of what went into its production for once. But I'm willing to answer any questions and provide some basic help to those who would like to get this off the ground. The key is to just run with it. If enough community members are in favor of kicking off a new CCLP and feel like the staff represents them well, then there's nothing holding anyone back.
Quote:Making levels conform to multiple rulesets can be an intimidating and potentially tortuous process. So if we want to encourage more casual designers to be able to contribute to CCxLPns and allow maximum freedom of creativity, then CC1 and CC2 level packs should proceed in parallel and be unrelated. CC2 level packs should go all out on the new CC2 elements. (The Lynx compatibility restrictions in CCLP3 and CCLP1 did help get rid of inane and insane MS tile combinations, but no similar benefit would be derived by trying to make the same level work in both CC1 and CC2.)
Agreed as well. I'm not quite as active in the community anymore, so I'm perfectly content to wait and see what happens once CCLP4 is made. If enough people want to port it to CC2 in some way, then sure, go right ahead - I don't think there are enough ruleset differences to make such an effort as complex as, say, CCLXP2. It doesn't matter to me, honestly. But from what I'm gathering from the comments here, it sounds like most people agree that CC2 is too new for CC2LP1 to be made, and many believe that enough levels have been offered up for CCLP4 (including some from designers who felt gipped with the difficulty restrictions in CCLP1) for it to become a reality.
Quote:So what would the level categories be?
Like I mentioned in a previous post, I don't think that shoehorning all of the submissions into predetermined categories this specific would be a wise idea. It would be putting the cart before the horse and basically requiring that the set contain, for instance, an "ice / force floor maze" category right off the bat before the staff even reviews the submissions and sees how many ice / FF mazes there even are. The same can be said for setting submission caps on these categories. I believe a wiser idea would be to allow the designers to evaluate their sets, decide what represents them the best with minimal regard for how everyone else is represented by choosing a variety of quality entries on a broad level, and then let the chips fall where they may (so to speak). The staff can then review the submissions after that phase and decide how the broad categories need to be segmented further. At least that way, the staff decisions will be based on what is, not what could be - and the designer decisions can be less informed by what seems to be over- or under-represented.