CC2 Community Pack Survey

[Bowman]

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

Sup Chipsterz,

Sup.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

What should the set be named?

I am of the unpopular opinion that we should just continue the naming trend for official sets and name it CCLP5. I see no problem with this if the original community sets went from being MS-only to MS-and-Lynx with CCLP2 and 3. That change wasn't earth-shattering and this shouldn't be either. In essence it's still the same thing: a community-created official levelset for CC. It's just a naming system, anyway.

Any future CC1 sets could then follow with CCLP6 or wherever we'd be at.

It's whatever version (CC1 or CC2) the community prefers at the time, though I don't see a need to go back to CC1 for official sets since CC2 can pretty much do everything CC1 can and more. But I understand why people like to play CC1 still.

But as this suggestion is not likely to be met with general approval, I would suggest maybe "Chip's Challenge 2 Community Pack 1" or CC2: CP1.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

How many levels?

We always stayed consistent with 149 before because that's how many levels were in the original game. Since there's 200 levels in CC2, I like the idea of 200 levels.

But if we're going to go with 150, we might as well just stick with 149.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

Allow levels with CC1 boot rules?

No.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

Consistent viewport size (9x9 or 10x10)?

10x10. All for consistency.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

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

I don't think there should be a limit. Anything too outrageous shouldn't get voted in anyway, but I'm excited to see what the community could come up with in this regard. I can see a really long but narrow level that just goes on and on. Or like a "world" map that has a lot of space in between "towns." But since CC doesn't have a checkpoint system, it can't be too challenging. But as a rule, I don't like putting a limit on creativity here.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, 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.

I don't know very much about these techniques but I agree with what the Architect said. Basically, I'm for anything that he puts in his editor, but against something that requires hex editing.

On 10/1/2018 at 4:42 PM, quiznos00 said:

Any other standards that should be set in place?

Not really standards but, I don't think a redoing of CC2 is necessary (like CCLP1). I'm all for exploring new concepts by means of new lesson levels though, or a rehash of some basic techniques that maybe could've been explained better. This is another reason I think 200 levels would be good.

These are just some of my opinions. I figured I'd let my thoughts be heard. But there were a lot of good suggestions I read. So whatever final product comes out, I'm sure it'll be in good hands, and I will like it. ?