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

[jblewis]

It's been several months since the release of CC2, and it seems like a lot of chipsters have generally enjoyed it, particularly the expanded selection of game elements and new level ideas to experiment with. One of the reactions to the game I've heard the most has been that the "stock" pack of levels is somewhat inconsistent in design quality. It's understandable - after all, the levels were made before many custom levels were even created for CC1 and level design evolved to what it is today. Personally, I enjoyed CC2 as a nostalgia trip back to the late '90s era of design when designers felt more free to experiment randomly, but I get that it may not be for everyone.

Many designers have already begun creating their own levels and anticipating the creation of an official set for CC2, either as an alternative to the stock pack or as an outlet for their creativity. So, I thought we should probably at least start having some sort of conversation about what we'd like to see with respect to future official sets. There are several options we could pursue, each with its own pros and cons, and a number of salient points have been raised in favor of each option throughout the occasional discussions among chipsters on Skype about this topic. (For clarification's sake, I will be referring to the potential next official custom set for CC1 as "CCLP4" and the potential first official custom set for CC2 as "CC2LP1," though I hope we don't have to feel bound to use that name.)

1. Make CCLP4 for CC1, then make CC2LP1 a different set for CC2. This option is appealing for at least a couple of reasons: many designers have built CC1 levels in the hope of seeing them in CCLP4, and CC2 design hasn't quite brought about the same amount of activity or variety of design tools yet. With this approach, CC1 as we've known it can have one last hurrah before everyone fully moves on and makes the adjustment to building levels for CC2. It would also allow for some time for additional editing programs be built, not to mention a free Tile World-esque alternative to the official version of CC2 like CC1 had. The downside is that the focus would initially be placed on a game that isn't exactly "active" in the sense that CC2 is.

2. Make CCLP4 and CC2LP1 basically the same set, without the use of CC2 elements in CC2LP1. Arguably the biggest argument for getting an official custom set for CC2 built sooner than later is that unlike CC1, CC2 is not a "dead" game. It's available for purchase on Steam, and as such, we as a community are facing an opportunity to bring in new members and grow even further by maintaining the game's momentum through some evergreen content. The question is how. A few designers have already ported some of their CC1 levels to CC2. One could argue that anyone who wishes to see their compositions in a future set that badly could easily use Chuck Sommerville's conversion program to port their work over to CC2. Those who would still like to make CCLP4 a reality could get on board with this if the set is compatible across all of the games - but there are a few issues with this. Even though many of the CCLP4 submissions were compatible with both MS and Lynx rulesets, that's not a guarantee that they would work in CC2. Tile World's Lynx emulation was more lenient about arbitrary clone and trap connections, whereas CC2 requires the reverse reading order connections used in CC's original, pedantic Lynx mode.

3. Make CCLP4 and CC2LP1 basically the same set, with the use of CC2 elements in CC2LP1. This option would allow designers to implement workarounds in situations like the aforementioned clone / trap connections (such as pink buttons and wires), as well as give them the freedom to build levels slightly differently if a mechanism would be better suited to CC2 game elements. Of course, there are two rather glaring issues with this option and Option 2. One is whether or not CC2LP1 would allow item dropping in levels, and I'd like to believe that either choice would be consistent throughout the set. Not doing so would prevent designers from placing non-CC1 collectible items (and would be rather sad for an initial CC2 official custom set), whereas doing so would break a number of levels that may be more difficult in CC1. The other problem is that anyone who has been introduced to the CC level designing world through CC2's release would have to build their levels for CC1 and get familiar with its mechanics, which would just be extra work.

4. Forget about CCLP4 and move on with CC2LP1 instead. This is the option I've been in favor of the most. It allows anyone who wanted their levels to be in CCLP4 the opportunity to submit them for consideration in CC2 instead, providing they're still active in the community. It gives them the freedom to build their levels in any way they want using whatever elements they want without having to worry about compatibility with another game and its ruleset(s) or multiple versions of their work. (This would especially be nice for optimization and scorekeeping as well.) Of course, it would mean that we wouldn't be making CCLP4 - but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing when the submitted content could be made even better with the trappings of the new game. We'd be making a commitment to supporting CC2 and making sure that it has new material instead of clutching onto something that's arguably obsolete.

What do you think? Which option sounds appealing to you? Do you have another suggestion not listed here? Feel free to sound off in this thread!

[random 8]

Perhaps start making CCLP4 after/close to releasing CC2LP1? Though i feel that may have negative effects on CCLP4.

[Ihavenoname248]

I voted for the first option, though I do like the third option quite a bit as well. The biggest issue would be the first CC2 'official' set not having many CC2 exclusive mechanics, but right now we have a large pool of levels available for CCLP4. If CCLP4 was then ported to CC2 (similar to how I'm porting UC4: primary gameplay unchanged, with CC2 elements thrown in when applicable), it would be a taste of what a community driven pack could do and might build more interest in making CC2 levels.

So I guess my strongest feeling is this:
Make CCLP4 as planned before CC2, because we have such a huge pool of levels

Loose port^*
to CC2 with a similar title (perhaps do the same loose porting process for CCLP1, 2 and 3? CCLP2 may be difficult with the invalid tiles, but we do have CCLXP2 to build off).

Then, after CCLP4, there will be a larger pool of CC2 levels available so a "CC2LP1" would be a better product, and CC2 would then have 3(+?) existing 'official' (CC1 Steam, CC2, CCLP4 port, CCLP1-3 port?) sets to be looked at for inspiration. Most people here probably know of these sets, but do most people who just play CC2 on Steam, using its discussion forums solely for community interaction know of these sets? What about the people who don't even check the forums? They might miss out completely on any further CC2 sets, unless the set is officially added in an update to CC2 (or announced through Steam's interface, but both of those would require developer input).



*
Loose port meaning with colored/steel wall aesthetics, bonus flags added, possibly key thieves/other small additions to levels to make larger mechanisms take up less space, with wires to make connections work. I think even You Can't Teach an Old Frog New Tricks would be able to be ported-many of its connections are already pedantic.

[_H_]

Having a compilation of the best custom cc2 levels, ordered in a way to give an excellent playing experience, even if it's not what you would call CC2LP1, is, as I think, pretty important, and should be done as soon as possible, to give especially players who are not active in the community around level creation, something to download and have fun with and not have to download a lot of different packs or search to find those they want - as most people will not do this anyhow...

If it is a predecessor to a CC2LP1, it doesn't matter if levels are finally found in both packs, or such a set could even be constantly updated, to be the <span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-size:10px;">CC2LP1 sometime in the future....

[chipster1059]

I chose the third option. I know there are a lot of good CC1 levels made after CCLP1 or too hard for CCLP1. From one point of view, the really good CC1 levels could be ported to CC2 and make it into CC2LP1. But from another point of view, there are probably enough good CC1 levels for an entire 149 level set.

Another idea would be to make CC2LP1 with CC2 elements, and then try to make a backwards-compatible version for CC1, like CCLXP2. But there may be some levels that would be impossible to port, even with major changes. In that case, I may favour a last CC1 set, which can then be ported to CC2 with minor changes and improvements.

[The Architect]

When we made CCLP3, we were faced with a choice between rulesets: the MS rules with which most of us were familiar, and the original Lynx rules newly re-introduced by Tile World. It was decided that the set would require submitted levels to be cross-compatible, I.E. able to be solved, in roughly the same way, in either ruleset. Many levels at the time had been made with MS rules in mind, and were definitely not compatible with Lynx rules. Designers had to edit levels, sometimes heavily, to make them Lynx-compatible and therefore eligible for submission. But it was felt that the benefits of being able to play the entire set in either ruleset were worth the extra work.

This is the same situation. We currently have a large pool of levels that are CC1-compatible, many of which could probably be made CC2-compatible with more or less editing. New members of the community are used to the new CC2 ruleset, but they could also enjoy many of the great level ideas which have already been implemented in CC1. Old community members deserve at least one more chance to see their awesome levels in an official community set, even if it might mean extra work for them to make those levels CC2-compatible.

This, then, is my suggestion: make one set drawing on the existing CC1 pool, and produce it in two packs formatted for the Tile World and CC2 engines, respectively. To enable the included levels to be converted to CC2, require that all submissions be made cross-compatible, just as we did with MS and Lynx for CCLP3. CC2 levels could also be submitted, as long as they are CC1-compatible (in particular, use CC1 boot-rules). The current relatively small pool of CC2-only levels can be drawn upon for a future set, once we have reduced the large existing CC1 pool. Thus we can provide a new CC2 set (CC2 is after all a quasi-superset of CC1) for newcomers, without wasting the ideas and efforts of veteran CC1 designers.

In other words, I think we need a blend of options 3 and 4. Forget about 'CCLP4' as a CC1-only set, and instead make it as a cross-compatible set, using a minimum of CC2 elements for compatibility. Meanwhile, save 'CC2LP1' for a later set that will allow all of the new elements in CC2, and use CC2 boot-rules.

[geodave]

OK, I voted for option #3 (to clarify -- make them the same set, with some CC2 elements for CC2).

Here's my reasoning....We have a boatload of levels out there in the pool that were built on CCLP3/CCLP1 principles. We could, without much trouble, take what we have (maybe give a submission deadline of Halloween) and make a very good set as-is. While we spend a couple months voting, designers would have time to port the same levels to CC2, and add it CC2 elements as they see appropriate, while maintaining the spirit of the level. (For example, you might put in custom walls, or change brown buttons to pink -- but you wouldn't add rovers.)

Why this is the best is:

1. It clears out a backlog of really good levels.

2. It gives us the quickest path to a levelpack for CC2.

3. There is NO #3.

4. It gives designers time to figure out the new mechanics and discourages them from making any non-CC2 levels.

So, am I not brilliant? Also, if we don't get on this NOW it's going to take forever (a la CCLP3).

[Ihavenoname248]

The downside to option 3 is that the designers will spend time porting all eligible levels, and not just the final set. I don't think it would be too hard to make a CC2-ized version of the set after it was made purely with CC1 in mind. The rare case where a level won't port nicely (here's an example) can still be ported with some fairly minor changes. Additionally, adjusting existing levels allows for addition of CC2 mechanics when helpful.

My opinion is clearly the best because only the relevant levels get ported and the original designers may not even need to be around for this process (I'd port everything in the final project myself if that's what it took to get the idea to fruition).

I tend towards option 1 in the poll simply because most of the existing material is CC1 in nature, so even though CC2 is newer, the focus for CCLP4 should be on CC1 mechanics. Porting to CC2 is fairly low-impact, and we could even use a port of CCLP1 as a trial run if necessary.



The other purpose this serves is to have a CC2 set ASAP (CCLP4 would be the quickest new set, porting, say, CCLP1 could get a CC2 set even quicker) to broaden the audience of CC2LP1 (both designers and prospective players!), spotlight the past community efforts and give some time for CC2-specific levels to be created so a CC2-specific set can be up to par.

Making a CC2 set for the sake of making a CC2 set when the majority of the set would be CC1-styled seems silly to me. Making a CC1 set match one to one with CC2 also seems silly when taking a few freedoms with the porting (bonus flags etc.) is only marginally more effort for much more gain.

[jblewis]

All right! This is really helpful.

It sounds like the majority of respondents are in favor of using our existing CC1 submissions in some way, and if that's the case, then I think Jeffrey's suggestion of making a CCLP4 that can be adapted to CC2 is the most reasonable. He brought up a very good point: CC2 could use a "community spotlight" or two to give new and veteran designers even more motivation to create submissions for the CC2-only sets of the future. The more I think about it, I suppose CCLP2 functioned in this way after its release while preparations were underway for CCLP3 (though it took forever). During CCLP2's production, the CCLP2 staff simply took all the levels available online and piled them into voting, then worried about all the designer permission issues afterward (which is why some levels sadly did not make it in, despite performing well). For a designer, there wasn't that much motivation other than the potential inclusion in a community-produced level pack, since there were no such packs available. Thankfully, we have a much more robust design community these days.

As much as I'd love to see a CC2-only set made ASAP, I understand that not everyone's going to be a quick adopter when it comes to CC2. At least this way, we can use the levels in our CC1 submission pool for CCLP4, particularly since some of them were glossed over for CCLP1 due to its special nature, and make a smoother transition over to CC2 by actively engaging in porting the levels that are ultimately inducted into the set. We could, as Jeffrey suggested, even port CCLP1 to CC2. Unless there are some designers secretly working on more level sets for CC1, I don't foresee many additions to the submission pool. The questions we need to address in the days to come concern the timetable for the submission process and what components define the consideration process. How soon do we want to officially open and close the submission process and begin the consideration process? (Personally, I don't think this should be too long from now.) What do we want the consideration process to involve? Should there be voting? Would new community members, particularly those who know of CC only through the new, official version of CC on Steam, be interested in picking up Tile World and playing through thousands of submitted levels, or should we leave the decision-making up to a staff with varied tastes? Or both, as was done with CCLP1?

[Flareon350]

As someone who has agreed to be on the CCLP4 staff months ago, I personally think submissions should be open as soon as possible. Like J.B. stated, I really don't think many more CC1 sets are going to be constructed anymore - maybe one or two at the most. I also think that in terms of assembling CCLP4, it should be done in a similar way CCLP1 was created - done by voting, though in a slightly different way maybe? Perhaps we could consider only a certain amount of levels per designer? Or only a total of 1,000 (using 1,000 as an example) levels altogether? This way, there wouldn't be nearly as much playtesting done, as well as newer members of the community wouldn't have to stress about downgrading to Tile World to play said levels, since let's be honest, that would be a pain for the people who have already accustomed themselves to CC2's gameplay (myself included). Or just have the designers submit solutions of the levels they want to submit (though this may be extreme and unfair in the long run...) This is just my opinion.

First things first though, we should get an actual staff going for this set before anything official gets discussed.