CC2 Community Pack Survey

[chipster1059]

I really want this set to happen. Hopefully submissions will open in December or January.

9 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

What should the set be named?

I would go with CC2LP1 or CC2LP2. Keep in mind that CCLP2 was the first sequel to the original CC1 set, and CCLP1 only came much later as a "replacement" for the original. Depending on whether we go with a replacement or a sequel-style set, either could be all right.

9 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

How many levels?

200 seems fine.

9 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

I would say no to this. This was not used in any levels of the original CC2 sets.

9 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

I would rather have always 10x10 whenever possible. 9x9 levels could, however, be modified to be 10x10 through a "fixing" period like for CCLP4.

9 minutes ago, quiznos00 said:

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

No. Let's have a 100x100 level in the set!

9 minutes ago, 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.

Let's not ban blank no-signs and zero-directional blocks. Hex edited levels should be banned. I don't see how "block slapping" counts as a non-obvious technique, considering how Lynx play has become much more popular over recent years. But as for other, legit-obscure gimmicks, I would say that it's fine as long as there is a lesson-style level that clearly explains the concept.

HOWEVER, I would say to ban any glitch that has the chance to be fixed in later versions of CC2, which would break the set.