Facing the Future: What's Next for Official Sets?

[random 8]

Concerning the "variety level" problem, could we allow levels to be in multiple categories, but not have that count towards the submission cap?

[chipster1059]

The problem with submission caps for different categories, I think, is that categories are arbitrary. As random 8 pointed out, some levels can belong in more than one category. Also categories like "maze" and "variety" don't really mean much...

Also Jeffrey why won't that level port nicely? It's possible to put wires under bombs.

[Flareon350]

If there is a level that fits in more than one caregory, that said level could be placed in it's own category like "more than one theme" or something.

[jblewis]

@Jeffrey (and everyone else): I think there are a couple of solutions we could look at to address the limitations of categorization. One is more segmented categorization for broad groups. During CCLP1 assembly, for instance, we noticed that there were a bunch of “variety” levels that performed well, and many of them were itemswappers. So in order to make sure that non­-itemswappers were represented fairly, we split up “variety” to include a separate itemswapper list with its own levels. The same could be done here depending on what level categories will be overloaded during the submission process -­ add a secondary dimension. So for instance, if the CCLP4 staff found themselves with tons of mazes, they may choose to divide that up into “open” (Crumbling Point, perhaps, to use Josh as an example) and “closed” mazes (Batteries in a Sock). The second solution is to categorize the categories themselves. We also did this for CCLP1, with categories dedicated to gameplay type, dominant elements, design style, size, and difficulty. Of course, how those lists were filled out was informed by the voting results, and as a result, we had a number of levels that appeared on multiple lists. How we ultimately used the lists was to fill out what was underrepresented from the raw results. Perhaps the CCLP4 staff can ensure that each level appears in at least one “bucket” in each broad category, even if this means creating groups like “no dominant tile” in the tile category. Or set aside certain categories for voting and reserve others for more internal use, like the broad "difficulty" ones.

I think if this categorization approach was used, the CCLP4 staff can’t lean too far in either direction ­- always using hard numbers to make decisions or always using subjective opinion. There has to be a balance, a constant awareness of what kinds of levels are necessary to round out the set. My concern with leaving the categorization of levels up to the designers is that it shifts responsibility that would be more optimally handled by a few to a large group, and it has the potential to undermine the purpose of working within a submission cap. I’m a little worried that if designers were actively forced to limit the number of levels they submit per “bucket,” particularly when multiple categories are involved, there would be no flexibility within that portion of the process to account for underrepresented or overrepresented buckets as submissions roll in, and designers could attempt to account for those discrepancies on their own before the submission period ends.

Maybe I’m alone in this, but I think if the CCLP4 staff were to institute a submission cap, working within that cap has to involve some kind of realism about the production process. We have to keep in mind that out of 2,000 (so far) submissions, only 149 levels are going to be in the final product. If we were each to envision what the final set would look like, with variety on several counts, just how many levels would a given designer have? Would any one person have 75­-100, or even 50? I didn’t mean to imply that selecting one’s submissions had to be a siloed effort. If a designer is unsure about what to submit, of course feedback is an option. But if a CCLP is meant to be a collection of the community’s best work, the point of that effort would be to narrow down one’s own compositions to that which represents him or her the best. Which levels stand out enough to hold a spot in a CCLP? Which levels are the most fun to play? One could argue that voting helps answers these questions, but in reality, we’re dealing with variables and qualities that are difficult to quantify. As mentioned earlier, the “agreeability” factor in voting undermines its effectiveness with respect to addressing these issues. And I don't believe trying to institute measures at that stage to govern variety rather than leaving it in designers' hands will be very effective.

Once the submission period closes, t​hen I​think the staff can start having a discussion about what types of levels are overrepresented and underrepresented, and how the voting takes place and how all the levels are distributed into category buckets can be informed by that. The staff could use their own judgment about certain levels or categories here, but at least we have some boundaries and delegations of responsibility in place with an understanding of the scope of the project.

[chipster1059]

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.

So what would the level categories be? Maybe something like this:

Dodging (standard)

Dodging (blobs/walkers)

Maze (open)

Maze (closed)

Maze (ice/force floors)

Itemswapper

Block pushing (tedious)

Block pushing (sokoban)

etc.

[Ihavenoname248]

When I was ordering levels in UC4 (and trying to keep a balance of styles) I had broken the levels down into:


Avoidance: What J.B. called 'Abstinence'. Basically, avoid collecting something you would usually collect. Commit Suicide is probably the best one of these I've played.

Collection: Just a collection focused level. Think Hunt or Yorkhouse, though the scale doesn't have to be quite that large. Also classifies larger open levels.

Concept: A level less focused on the gameplay and more focused on making a given concept work. You could say You Can't Teach an Old Frog New Tricks falls under this to a certain extent, but I would say Debug File is a better example.

Guidance: Monster manipulation of some sort. Anything from Old Frog to the ending portion of Nuts and Bolts. A good middle tier level for this group is Chip Plank Galleon.

Itemswapper: Anything where the predominant means of accessing new things is swapping items. Sampler, Tool Box and Design Swap fit.

Maze: It's a maze you'd all better know what a maze is and CCLP4 had better have a lot of good mazes there's still some really neat concepts for them that haven't been in CCLPs yet.

Melee: There's dodging and stuff.

Sokoban: It's mostly block pushing and stuff.

Variety: Anything that doesn't fall nicely into one of the above categories. A level with no real gameplay theme. Automatic (Caution) Doors falls under variety level due to its gameplay varying throughout, despite the novel method of accessing new areas. It's also an itemswapper to a certain extent, but it doesn't feel like one at first.

My own breakdown was 1 Avoidance, 7 Concept, 7 Itemswapper, 8 Guidance, 9 Collection, 19 Melee, 30 Sokoban, 33 Variety and 35 Maze levels. I'd have liked more melee and a few less mazes in hindsight, but the overall balance is fairly solid I think. I haven't gone through any CCLPs for similar counts but I'd imagine there would be some similarities.


I don't think this breakdown is by any means perfect and definitely think it could be improved. How, I'm not sure.

[KeyboardWielder]

This is a pretty long and verbose thread so I haven't read through each post.

In short, I agree with most of what Bowman (and Eric) said.

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.)

I voted for the first option as being the closest to my opinion, but I think there is no need to stop CC1LPs after CCLP4 nor necessarily have a specific time ordering between CCLP4 and CC2LP1. I agree that it is still too early for CC2LP1 (and BTW also still think that it's a little early for CCLP4). I think CC2 Create competitions (and other types of CC2 competitions) would better serve its purpose right now than an early CC2LP1.

With reference to the comment:

... from an "official support" perspective, CC2 is a game that's active and available on Steam, whereas Tile World and the MS / Lynx versions of CC1 don't quite hold that distinction ...

Tile World is freely available for download, still has people occasionally working on it, runs on pretty much any platform (including older ones), and doesn't require an Internet connection and a bulky Steam environment to play. I think Steam just isn't an appealing platform to casual gamers. There may be a large intersection between the currently active CCZone community and CC2 players, but I see that there are at least a few CC1 players - including me - who don't seem to have played CC2 yet.

Not making more CC1 packs because CC1 is less "active" is one argument.

Another one is to continue making more CC1 packs so that it remains active.

But I think trying to make packs that work in CC1 as well as CC2 will ruin the fun for both.



- Madhav.

[jblewis]

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.

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.

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.

[Flareon350]

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.

I'm waiting for other people who want to be on the staff. Everyone knows I'm willing to lead it (or co-lead it with Jeffrey) so if we have to make it clear that we want to get this project moving we can and we can also try to recruit some members for the staff team. Though I personally don't know how to start off on a project like this so that's what I'm having trouble with. I guess just open submissions for CCLP4 for the time being?

Edit: I'm pretty sure most of everyone forgot this was a thread. http://cczone.invisionzone.com/index.php?/topic/1083-cclp4-staff-assembly/

The real question is are the people who are on the "Not against being on the staff" section, still willing to contribute to CCLP4? This would be a good stepping stone to get the project moving forward.

[The Architect]

I am willing to be on the staff, in pretty much any capacity.

As for getting started, I think the first thing is to have the community at large approve a staff. Then it's up to the staff to make official decisions like opening submissions.