02-Oct-2018, 4:03 AM
Thanks for bringing up this topic. It's good to plan and talk about this.
I would love it if we came up with a better name than CC2LP1. I like The Architect's suggestions; I'd vote for C3P0. I wouldn't mind even if we came up with something that isn't an acronym, but just a name for the pack, a bit like the voting packs we've had.
I don't want to work through 200 levels in a new community pack. If we cut it down to 50 levels, we could produce such packs much quicker. Everything about the pack would be easier, particularly for new players which I think we should focus on. I think that would be a more modern approach to game design. Even having 100 levels is a lot of levels to play through. There's no reason today to not make smaller sets, when everyone is connected to the net and can much more easily acquire new packs to play than we could thirty years ago when the model of having 140+ levels was set. I would much rather play several smaller packs than one large one, even if some where produced concurrently. I'm not sure many of you will agree with me on this, but thought I'd put the idea out there.
I don't feel we need to see CC1 boot rules. We could save some ideas and concepts for future packs. The easiest way to do this is to restrict the level design somewhat and then open that up later. It can help give each pack a different identity. The same idea applies to the consistent viewport size; maybe restrict it now to make keep the set internally consistent (though I don't think it makes such a big difference). CC2 has so many elements, we could even save a tile/theme/monster to be a focus on a later set, and not use any of them in the first one.
I don't see the need for a map size limit, though I'm not opposed to it either. However, I do think whoever is compiling the set should take into account the whole experience of playing the set. Maybe it would be fun to have level with unfamiliar dimensions. Maybe it would be really bad to have ten large levels in the set even if they all did well in voting. Some concepts just require more space, so as long as the game play is enjoyable to everyone, but does this correlate with the level size?
I think there are techniques in CC2 that would not be healthy in a community pack. We should want to keep it as beginner friendly as possible. Even requiring block slapping to solve a level should come with a clear tutorial just because there will be people who aren't familiar with it no matter how well the rest of us know it. I'd be sad if our target audience would only be us. New tiles that were not in the main game are fine if they are logical and their function is easy to guess. (Or we could restrict these and save them for later.) Any bugs that may be fixed in an update should be avoided.
Wouldn't it be great to have this pack be added to the game itself? Is that something we could possibly do?
I would love it if we came up with a better name than CC2LP1. I like The Architect's suggestions; I'd vote for C3P0. I wouldn't mind even if we came up with something that isn't an acronym, but just a name for the pack, a bit like the voting packs we've had.
I don't want to work through 200 levels in a new community pack. If we cut it down to 50 levels, we could produce such packs much quicker. Everything about the pack would be easier, particularly for new players which I think we should focus on. I think that would be a more modern approach to game design. Even having 100 levels is a lot of levels to play through. There's no reason today to not make smaller sets, when everyone is connected to the net and can much more easily acquire new packs to play than we could thirty years ago when the model of having 140+ levels was set. I would much rather play several smaller packs than one large one, even if some where produced concurrently. I'm not sure many of you will agree with me on this, but thought I'd put the idea out there.
I don't feel we need to see CC1 boot rules. We could save some ideas and concepts for future packs. The easiest way to do this is to restrict the level design somewhat and then open that up later. It can help give each pack a different identity. The same idea applies to the consistent viewport size; maybe restrict it now to make keep the set internally consistent (though I don't think it makes such a big difference). CC2 has so many elements, we could even save a tile/theme/monster to be a focus on a later set, and not use any of them in the first one.
I don't see the need for a map size limit, though I'm not opposed to it either. However, I do think whoever is compiling the set should take into account the whole experience of playing the set. Maybe it would be fun to have level with unfamiliar dimensions. Maybe it would be really bad to have ten large levels in the set even if they all did well in voting. Some concepts just require more space, so as long as the game play is enjoyable to everyone, but does this correlate with the level size?
I think there are techniques in CC2 that would not be healthy in a community pack. We should want to keep it as beginner friendly as possible. Even requiring block slapping to solve a level should come with a clear tutorial just because there will be people who aren't familiar with it no matter how well the rest of us know it. I'd be sad if our target audience would only be us. New tiles that were not in the main game are fine if they are logical and their function is easy to guess. (Or we could restrict these and save them for later.) Any bugs that may be fixed in an update should be avoided.
Wouldn't it be great to have this pack be added to the game itself? Is that something we could possibly do?