04-Jan-2015, 11:58 AM
@JB: Between CCLP2 and CCLP3, a lot of non-Lynx-compatible levels were made. It wasn't decided that CCLP3 would have to be Lynx-c until the call for submissions. This arguably left many designers and levels "in the dust" (except for a few like Tom Rowe and Eric Schmidt who actively created Lynx-c versions of their levelsets). Subsequently, there was a tacit assumption that CCLP4 (or even-numbered CCLPs in general) would allow MS-only levels, although that no longer seems to be set in stone. If CCLP4 would indeed be allowing MS-only levels, then given that we already had a submission pool larger than what qualified for CCLP3, we should have set about CCLP4 immediately after CCLP3 going by that yardstick.
So I think our problems of plenty should not be factors in pushing the frequency of CCLPs. As an indicator of urgency, perhaps a better metric than "number of eligible levels in the pool" would be "number of new designers since the last CCLP", otherwise we could have frequent CCLPs dominated by a few prolific designers.
(I am not entirely convinced by my own arguments above, but they're all I could verbalize about why I personally don't feel enthusiastic to see another CCLP so soon as a designer, as a voter and - most importantly - as a player.)
- Madhav.
So I think our problems of plenty should not be factors in pushing the frequency of CCLPs. As an indicator of urgency, perhaps a better metric than "number of eligible levels in the pool" would be "number of new designers since the last CCLP", otherwise we could have frequent CCLPs dominated by a few prolific designers.
(I am not entirely convinced by my own arguments above, but they're all I could verbalize about why I personally don't feel enthusiastic to see another CCLP so soon as a designer, as a voter and - most importantly - as a player.)
- Madhav.