CCLP1 Voting Pack News and Releases

[jblewis]

Please note: all votes submitted via PMs or e-mail will be added to the total count once voting ends.

Total votes: 43,227

Progress toward at least 20 votes on each level: 131.23% - ACHIEVED!

Progress toward at least 25 votes on each level, based solely on MNoV/pack: 96.72%

Minimal number of votes (MNoV) on each pack so far:

Cardboard - 36
Flouncy - 31
Giraffe - 26
Shampoo - 31
Lipstick - 27
Tungsten - 27

<span style="color:rgb(0,128,0);">Eggplant - 26
Vermillion - 23
Popcorn - 27
Dragon - 29
Zephyr - 26
Helmet - 26
Baguette - 26
Roadcone - 25
Magma - 24
Omicron - 23
Asteroid - 27
Kimono - 24
Igloo - 22
Quartz - 22
Umbrella - 23
Yoga - 24
Necktie - 23
Wrench - 23
Jacuzzi - 24
Xylem - 23
Generic - 23
Bookshelf - 23
Parrot - 25

Violin - 25

Mushroom - 24

Shoehorn - 25

Entertainment - 25

[ajmiam]

YES YES YES Thank you for changing Sphinx!! That just bought it a increase in rating from me. Yes, with that one change, it is now one of the best levels I've seen so far in the packs. (Played through parts of all but Giraffe so far.)

I also have to agree with jbdude55 that More Mini Puzzles was great, as was Mini Puzzles. Really, there are quite a few great levels here. I also greatly enjoyed Colony II, Shooting Star, and Badlands, among many, many others. Unfortunately I had the same experience with Upstream as you had with Slide of 25 Trials.

JB, I have a few voting-related questions:

1) If I see a level that looks like it's meant to be a lesson level (meaning it has a title and hint that introduce a basic concept) but I think it's too difficult to be a lesson level, but it would make a great teens-20s level, should I rate it for a teens-20s slot? (According to your instructions, I think the answer should be "yes".) And if the level makes it in and is deemed too difficult for a lesson level, will its hint and/or name be removed or changed so it isn't redundant by that point in the set? (That's the only reason I am concerned about treating it as a post-lesson level while voting.)

2) What do I do if I encounter a level that has (IMHO) one glaring poorly designed or unfair spot late into the level that makes it a or level, BUT that one flaw is easily fixable and changing it would make the level or worthy? (Sort of kind of just exactly like Sphinx.) Is this topic the right place to make fix suggestions for levels like this? Ordinarily, I might try to contact the designer, but since the levels in the packs are anonymous and I don't know what set the level in question comes from....

3) If it's not too much trouble, could you please number the levels on the voting pages? As I was playing, I took notes in the form of level numbers and star ratings, but not names, so putting in my votes entails either translating numbers to names using the score screen or very carefully going one at a time down the list trying not to miscount.

Finally, a couple of minor "busts" (not sure if they are really busts) to report:

In "Aych Two Oh" (Cardboard #6) you can easily bypass the chip socket, which is quite silly given that the level's one chip is right before the socket.

In "Order of Operations" (Flouncy #22) I found that I could solve it with only one block. (No, I didn't even need either of the two blocks in the exit room.) Is this intended?

[jblewis]

1) If I see a level that looks like it's meant to be a lesson level (meaning it has a title and hint that introduce a basic concept) but I think it's too difficult to be a lesson level, but it would make a great teens-20s level, should I rate it for a teens-20s slot? (According to your instructions, I think the answer should be "yes".) And if the level makes it in and is deemed too difficult for a lesson level, will its hint and/or name be removed or changed so it isn't redundant by that point in the set? (That's the only reason I am concerned about treating it as a post-lesson level while voting.)

Yes, that is correct.

2) What do I do if I encounter a level that has (IMHO) one glaring poorly designed or unfair spot late into the level that makes it a or level, BUT that one flaw is easily fixable and changing it would make the level or worthy? (Sort of kind of just exactly like Sphinx.) Is this topic the right place to make fix suggestions for levels like this? Ordinarily, I might try to contact the designer, but since the levels in the packs are anonymous and I don't know what set the level in question comes from....

I've been torn about what we should do in case we have another Sphinx-like issue - on one hand, I feel like these issues deserve to be addressed since the levels have made it this far, but on the other hand, I also want to avoid reuploading voting packs for people to download and have to contend with multiple versions of the same level floating around. I think I've got a solution, though. So far, I've been playing - and solving - every level in each of the packs before they are released publicly. As part of this process, I can contact a designer in case I find anything of this sort and deal with it before the public release of the pack. (There's already one level in the next pack to be released that could fit into this category.) If anyone has any further suggestions for the level after it's released in the voting pack, they can make them publicly on CCZone and state that their rating is being submitted under the condition that the suggestion they're making is considered. Other people can concur if they wish. Then, if the level is inducted into CCLP1, we can address the suggestion before the set's release. On the NG, I've already received a suggestion for a place to provide feedback for levels - and not just in this arena, but also for titles that would need to be changed and what not. I think the best solution is to unlock the voting threads and use them as "suggestion" threads while keeping the overall discussion here. What does everyone think?

3) If it's not too much trouble, could you please number the levels on the voting pages? As I was playing, I took notes in the form of level numbers and star ratings, but not names, so putting in my votes entails either translating numbers to names using the score screen or very carefully going one at a time down the list trying not to miscount.

Done!

Just finished playing through Flouncy - score one for finishing university and having needless amounts of free time .

I'm hoping we can finish most of the voting over the summer for this very reason.

I found #35 (Chip Skate) a very interesting level. It's pointedly obvious what needs to be done to complete the level but that's where the kindness stops. It's so easy to get lost since everything looks the same and you spend so much time sliding. The numerous ice skates that arbitrarily litter the level with almost reckless abandon add to the challenge even further, since you have no idea which pair you should be trying to collect. I ended up making a map, since I wouldn't look in the editor if the level was in the finished article, and finally managed to work out where I was supposed to be going. For these reasons, I'm not sure whether I adore or despise this level, but it intrigued me nonetheless (:

I'll go ahead and confess: I designed this one. And it is untimed for this very reason. I didn't know what people would think of it, but I figured it would be one of those Marmite levels that people either really loved or really despised. The original impetus for creating it was to see just how interesting I could make an ice maze without turning it into some sort of itemswapper. (Not to mention that I wanted to use Madhav's title from the title bank on the ChipWiki!) At first, I laid out all the paths, then I added the skates and fleshed everything else out.

On a different note, I'd like to propose an idea for future pack releases. In the past, we had intended (and proposed) to release "waves" of packs (of three or four each) and make the releases contingent on participation with the current "wave." But, here's a potentially better idea: why not set a goal for number of voters who have voted on every level of a pack and release a new one when we reach that goal? For example, right now, we've got eight voters who have completed - or almost completed - Cardboard (seven for Shampoo, six for Flouncy, and four for Giraffe). How about releasing the next pack when ten people complete Cardboard? We can continue doing this until all 33 packs are released, and it can help ensure that each pack is receiving adequate consideration while keeping the pressure off everyone to complete every level - we do have more than ten voters, after all - and people who quickly complete the levels and vote don't have to wait for ten people to finish all four packs in the current "wave." I understand this might make it a bit easier for the packs to be "ordered," but they're already listed in order of release date in the download section, and if the current threads in the voting section are unlocked and turned into suggestion threads with active posting, the polls will get mixed up anyway. By the time all 33 packs are released, we can keep voting open for as long as we need to after that, which will be somewhat dependent on just how more some people may want to participate.

[jblewis]

On the note of Sleeping Dragon, for the longest time I couldn't work out why the teleports wouldn't work until I realised that by trying to be clever and save blocks, I had partial posted with fireballs and ended up with them stuck on teleports and a whole mess of other problems...Though this is a negative reflection on myself, the player, rather than the level, which is great!

I'm so glad you've brought this up - it's good to know that there are voters who are distinguishing between frustration that stems from fatigue, simply not playing well, etc. and frustration that stems from a level being designed poorly. It's always disheartening to hear Let's Players - and not necessarily Chip's Challenge ones - deride a level or game just because they're having trouble with it, not because it's a bad level or game.

Is #41 (REW) supposed to be a joke? I understand that CCLP1 is supposed to be a replacement for the original CC1, but it makes no sense to me why we should include a level that consists almost entirely of cut-and-pasted sections of CC1 levels Taking the concepts and altering/improving them in some way is fine by me, but outright copying them into another level defeats the purpose of a "new" level pack. In order of appearance, BLOBDANCE, MIX UP, BLOCK N ROLL, MIXED NUTS, AMSTERDAM, OPEN QUESTION, SPOOKS and NUTS AND BOLTS from CC1 are represented, with only AMSTERDAM not looking (to a moderate inspection by me, at least) like a complete cut-and-paste job. I apologize to whoever designed this level (which I assume to be short for "Rewind"?), since again, it's a perfectly good level, but I'm not impressed with its inclusion in CCLP1 voting.

I was the one who reviewed the set in which this level originally appeared, and I had planned to eliminate it before voting for these reasons. However, another staff member lobbied for its inclusion, citing CCLP3 levels that referenced past material like Recurring Dream and Mr. McCallahan Presents, which, admittedly, took the concepts and altered them in some significant ways. I still didn't think it would be appropriate for a CC1 replacement, but a couple of potential reasons people might use when defending the level came to mind: [a] using little portions of CC1 levels could be construed as fair use and would be an interesting way to show new players what the original game was like, using this sort of level in CCLP1 in such a way might open some interesting doors for the set's storyline, and [c] the overall gameplay of such a level would be somewhat different when a bunch of pieces of CC1 levels were strung together. Of course, all of this would be dependent on whether or not the level survived voting, so after thinking about it more, I thought it deserved a chance, though my personal opinion still stands.

#28 (Androidal) in ms you can boost backwards off the ff at (9,7). Not much of a difference, but still wanted to say something, and it's not hard to make it equal by adding another ff. Same kind of thing with #29 (Fibonacci) at (12,15), though that is even less significant. (Talking of which, that level (#29) really needs a higher time limit; it's currently five minutes and it take almost four minutes to play through even with familiarity of the level.)

Yeah...this sort of inequality is pretty much what we didn't really think was worth pursuing when evaluating the levels initially.

#32 (Death Box) seems busted by just pushing a block onto the blue button. I earlier thought this was the intended solution, but now took a better look and there is a longer solution that was probably the intended one. I have a suggestion for how to fix this, but it comes with a stupid stipulation: if you implement my suggestion, I would appreciate it if you also kept the aesthetics of the mechanism intact (they are only visible in an editor anyway). Here's a picture of what I was thinking:

You and your blocks-on-corners aesthetics...



On another note, we've just passed ten voters who have rated all of the levels in Cardboard. So, as per my last post, I will be releasing the next pack - the Lipstick Pack - tonight! When I get my notes in front of me, I will also add a tally for how many people have completed every pack so those who don't have the time to rate everything can see whats undervoted. Plus, everyone else will know what's close to reaching 10 voters so there's an incentive toward which to work - the release of another pack!

[ManipulatorGeneral]

Time to dust off the Chipping apparatus and try my hand again...selected comments below.

Cardboard Pack:

1 (Ladder to Heaven) is somewhat repetitious, but defines a goal to ascend towards (and heaven is a fine goal to reach!) and thus escapes any negative implications of such word.

2 (Think Outside The Block) doesn't allow me to see either alternative block source, and I was initially miffed, but it's still rather obvious where to find them. I could figure out the direct path was a sham the same as Obstacle Course (3.118) rather easily.

3 (Around And Again) brought back Everybody Got Dangerous and pi.dat memories in turn, and is a definite favorite.

4 (Touch Force Floor, Get Dizzy) is too messy, incoherent, and lacking a definite objective to recommend.

With the problem of missing checkpoints fixed, 8 (Shooting Star) receives my strong recommendation.

13 (Gravity Distortion) is incredible, with its length the only sticking point; the concept is sturdy enough to last a while.

14 (Think, Chip, Think) is one of those levels which is short but brilliant for teaching and entertainment; my solution is relatively basic, but it takes nothing away from the fun.

Nothing much to say about 20 (Chord); I barely played this one because nothing really stands out.

I have always heavily championed 21 (Upstream) for its puzzle, aesthetic, and thematic progression, and clearly directed goal. Must make CCLP1.

The desert atmosphere of 26 (Badlands) is eminently memorable and, though the level is rather scattered, it fits the theme as such.

27 (Finders Keepers) is one of the rare excellent ultra-short simple levels; I can truly enjoy playing this over again.

35 (Locked Up) reminded me of Switch Hit and the Warehouses in a favorable way: unclogged and not too full of shenanigan paths.

36 (Extreme Course) was an instant love. Challenging and multifaceted but accessible, enjoyable, and coherent, it ought to make the final product.

The theme and aesthetics of 38 (Blue Island) are well-executed throughout, and the space efficiency is admirable; I initially thought I had busted the northwest section slightly, but I do find the mixture of required elements (one block to explode one of the bombs, another to open the trap permanently) more interesting than simply requiring seven gliders to explode seven bombs, or even to explode six and hold down one trap.

39 (What's Rightfully Mine) has been a perennial favorite. I won't lose my enjoyment of this even after optimizing it to death.

I initially thought 40 (Right-Roving Monsters) was simpler than it should have been by looks, but I find it a visually appealing and not too strenuous level that would fit wonderfully into early to mid-CCLP1.

41 (Back to the Drawing Board) prizes space efficiency and recycling previous elements, favorite aesthetics of mine and contributing to another perfect rating.

42 (Slide of 25 Trials) obviously references Pit of 100 Tiles and was fun to optimize, but offers too many collision chances for many casual players, some of them very difficult to spot; when the hardest to avoid is near the end, it's tougher to enjoy, and hence my rating was imperfect.

43 (Courtyard) is another popular level I will recommend again.

45 (Compact), unlike other ultra-simple levels, has practically nothing going for it; I don't rate many levels 1/5, but I can't justify anything higher.

47 (Here We Go Round) was better-received by me than other Let's Players, and was rather instinctive to solve, but I still committed execution blips. Not my fault, so perfect rating on this ingenious concept!

48 (BlobJail) is too tedious and monotonous to recommend at all, and the degree of blob invasions mean the level becomes extremely unpredictable and stays that way after over 10 minutes of playing, thus leading to many potential maddening deaths that are at the bottom of any CCLP1 player's wishlist, indeed any newcomer's.

50 (Bridges for Bugs) is still moderately tedious, but the clearer and more engaging objective grants it additional points.

Flouncy Pack:

4 (Secret Passages) is inventive; very open-ended design and room for error make it welcome into CCLP1's earlier regions.

5 (Tangled Web) has a brilliant concept, but I found myself blindly running into the fire, water, or bomb on multiple occasions. Window shopping is significantly less effective than it ought to be in this type of level. It might be wise to leave a safe floor space.

6 (Tank Race) was deliciously tricky, especially for such a small space. I had the faulty idea of spinning the glider around the level and deflecting off a block at [1, 10] to give myself additional time to control the tank, as well as the idea to switch the toggles before running, but didn't put the solution together.

7 (Dictator Blob) was initially terribly frustrating, but its easy decrement of craziness helps gain my votes back. I specialize in de-frustration mechanisms inside my own designing.

I will echo the praise of 13 (Sphinx) elsewhere. The visuals created by clone blocks are astounding, and the confusion with real blocks is minimal.

I do not approve of a 30-second wait at the beginning of every attempt at 14 (Freedom or Die), also considering some potential death traps later on in the level. I will vote this level much higher if this complaint is addressed.

15 (Frozen Maze) is heavily derivative of Arcticflow with some sections almost verbatim lifted from its ice maze, and like it, suffers from a 50-second downtime at the beginning; thankfully, you cannot die except by timing out, but I don't think the level merits a place in CCLP1.


That's all I've got on hand for now. Can't go back to spending hours on this game again when I have school starting.

[jblewis]

All righty, everyone - for those who haven't noticed yet, the Lipstick Pack has officially been released! Have fun playing it! Also, the voting completion counts are on the top of the page for those curious to know what has been voted on the least. Please do take care with your votes, though - I know everyone is excited to see another pack get released, but we don't want to rush the voting process and avoid giving each level the consideration it deserves. I highly recommend and encourage everyone to play each level before you rate it.

[tensorpudding]

I'm curious how long we're expected to spend on the level packs. I'd say about a bit under halfway done with the first four (most of Cardboard, maybe 25% of Flouncy, and 50% of Shampoo, and haven't tried Giraffe yet). I feel like I'm going to be left behind at this rate. I waste a lot of time trying to finish these monster-dodging levels (there are so many of them...)

Anyway, some notes I took on some levels that I played:

Cardboard#4: This is too difficult and tiresome for a forcefloor level, in my opinion.

Cardboard#6: I believe someone mentioned this was busted? I noticed the same thing.

Cardboard#7-8: These were both excellent levels

Cardboard#11: One of the best uses for invisible walls I've seen.

Cardboard#12: Definitely worthy of CCLP1

Cardboard#13: It's a really good idea but I hate how long it is, and the fact that you can cook it without knowing until the very end (happened to me!). Long, long levels like that involving a lot of block motion should not have things at the end that are "hey, you needed to do something three minutes ago and since you didn't you can't liberate that one last block!"

Cardboard#14: I really liked this level

Cardboard#17: I really liked this level

Cardboard#18: This level was weird. It took me way too long to figure out, despite how apparently simple it was. I don't know if it's actually fair or not.

Cardboard#21: A lot of people love this level (I kept hearing about it even before playing it) but I think it's painful. It took me a lot of tries.

Cardboard#23: This one confused me. What was the point of the cluster of teeth at the beginning?

Cardboard#30: One of the better introduction-to-teeth levels.

Cardboard#33: If we have to have a JUMPING SWARM clone, this would be it, but I'd as soon as forget it.

Cardboard#37: Almost too trivial.

Cardboard#39: I feel like the dodging of teeth in that crowded room is unfair.

Cardboard#40: Very fun level

Cardboard#41: This level is awesome! It took the concept of Back to the Start from CCLP3 but made it much easier and much more fun. It needs to be in CCLP1

Cardboard#42: This level is not fun, I don't care what other people say...ice dodging is one of my least favorite things.

Cardboard#43: Great level.

Cardboard#48: Tedious

Cardboard#50: It's a lot more inspired than ON THE ROCKS, but this is still going to be tedious.

Flouncy#1: The monster dodging is almost hypnotic. I keep dying. Good idea, I'll still vote for it though.

Flouncy#2: One of the best LESSON 1 clones I've seen.

Flouncy#3: This level is 100% CC1-aesthetic. Perfect for the set.

Flouncy#5: Fun level

Flouncy#6: I hated this level for five minutes, but once I got it I loved it. I have no idea what is meant by "cheating" though.

Flouncy#7: I hated this level on sight, and knowing that it's actually much shorter than expected mitigates that opinion somewhat. I just can't enjoy levels with randomness like that.

Flouncy#10: This was a really fun sokoban.

Flouncy#11: Good tutorial

Flouncy#12: I really like this sokoban too, but it'd be so much better if you could win through both routes. The hint made it seem like pushing blocks into the right path was the wrong thing to do, when actually it was correct, so I second-guessed myself and ended up one block short in the end going the bottom route.

Flouncy#13: Good one

Flouncy#15: A decent maze level. The part with the long ice path at the beginning was kinda tedious though.

Flouncy#17: I want to like this level but I can't beat it. I keep messing up the timing of the fireballs eventually.

Flouncy#19: Good level

Shampoo#2: I liked this one. Simpler than expected.

Shampoo#3: Worthy as a replacement for ELEMENTARY

Shampoo#6: A good level that is both simple but requires you to pay attention.

Shampoo#7: I love this level

Shampoo#10: I hate the dodging in this one.

Shampoo#12: Is this level busted? What are the flippers for? I like the theme though.

Shampoo#14: I hate levels that you can cook instantaneously at any moment while trying to dodge monsters.

Shampoo#15: I nominated this one to be whitelisted. It might be a bit hard for a puzzle, but I think it's a lot of fun.

Shampoo#21: Do we need to have a level as painful as VANISHING ACT in the set? This is somewhat easier since the walls follow a pattern, though.

Shampoo#24: A decent DOUBLEMAZE copy

Shampoo#27: I liked this one. It reminds me of how I took notes to finish TELENET; it requires a little bit of strategy but is not actually difficult.

Shampoo#28: Great level

[jblewis]

I'm curious how long we're expected to spend on the level packs. I'd say about a bit under halfway done with the first four (most of Cardboard, maybe 25% of Flouncy, and 50% of Shampoo, and haven't tried Giraffe yet). I feel like I'm going to be left behind at this rate. I waste a lot of time trying to finish these monster-dodging levels (there are so many of them...)

I wouldn't say there's any sort of expectation; everyone's entitled to play at whatever pace they want. I think we had quite an initial rush of activity in those first few days, though. The releasing of new packs is mainly for everyone who's finished the first four and is ready for a new one, as well as an incentive for people to continue playing the existing ones. There are also some people who just want to play the packs that are receiving less attention, and that is great too. Eventually, when all 33 packs are released, voting will most likely be kept open for quite a while longer depending on how everyone is doing or what kind of interest we have in terms of people who want to get through every level. We'll just have to play it by ear, though.

[Bowman]

In Ladder to Heaven, I was able to start up the right ladder and then descend through the left one. Not sure if this was intended, but I liked that it was possible.

Here is my personal criteria for voting levels:

5 Stars: A perfect CCLP1 level. Has to be in the set (In my opinion)

4 Stars: A very good CCLP1 candidate. Perhaps has only one issue that prevents it from being 5 stars

3 Stars: An average CCLP1 candidate. Nothing is wrong with a 3 star level and it wouldn't be a shame if one made it in.

2 Stars: Not necessarily a bad level but not appropriate for CCLP1. I would be disappointed if it made it in.

1 Star: No way. Doesn't necessarily mean I hated the level, but I probably did.

Not to impose my system on anyone else but I did a lot of thinking to come up with something that I was comfortable with. "Is it a 2 star or 3 star level if it's just alright?"

What is your system for rating levels?

Number of 5 star levels so far: 1

~Bowman

[AdrenalinDragon]

Number of 5 star levels so far: 1



~Bowman

Complete and utter guess here, but that wouldn't be a Tyler level by any chance?


As for Ladder To Heaven, yeah you can descend from either side of the ladder. Not a bust, intentional, and allows room for error and extra tactics/optimization in the CCLP1 version.