CCLP1 Lesson Compilation Ideas

[jblewis]

Hi all!


So, a while back, we had a rather spirited discussion on the newsgroup about what the “lesson level” setup for CCLP1 was going to look like. There were several options proposed and no real consensus reached that I could remember. Various numbers for lesson levels were also thrown around too, and it seemed like 10 was mentioned by a few community members. But again, nothing was set in stone, and that was probably for the best, as the number would also be somewhat dependent on the number of highly-voted non-lesson levels in the set.


I don’t expect us to reach any sort of consensus on this now, especially since we’ll kind of have to play a lot of this by ear depending on how voting goes, but I just wanted to gauge community opinion on what sort of method should be used to compile a collection of lesson levels with which to begin CCLP1 without bringing numbers into the picture. Here’s a rundown of what options have been proposed so far:

- Voting on one collection of lesson levels among those created by designers who have submitted levels for CCLP1 consideration.

- Holding a separate round of voting just for all levels that were designed to be tutorials or could function as such and including a mixture of the highest-voted ones, each of which would focus on introducing different elements.

- Having the staff collectively design a collection of lesson levels.

- Having the staff select their favorite lesson levels from the submission pool and modify them as needed to ensure continuity across the series.

- Forgetting about "lesson" levels. Wait, what? Here’s another idea: instead of blocking off a section for lesson levels, we could just see what the landscape of highly-rated low-difficulty levels looks like, create our collection of tutorials from that, and add hints wherever needed.


I started thinking about the last possibility more recently (particularly after playing through Pit of 100 Tiles, where this pretty much is the case) and have become a bit more comfortable with it. Not only does it allow more chances for designers to get their levels into CCLP1, but it also provides some flexibility as well. We don’t necessarily need to introduce every game element at the beginning of CCLP1 and can save some for later, much like the original game did with blobs, walkers, and paramecia. And if a level with “lesson” in its name makes it in, great - if not, other levels can also fit the bill. It also frees us from having to include all of these levels in a row. What do you think? Is there an option on this list that sounds most appealing to you?

[Flareon350]

So, a while back, we had a rather spirited discussion on the newsgroup about what the “lesson level” setup for CCLP1 was going to look like. There were several options proposed and no real consensus reached that I could remember. Various numbers for lesson levels were also thrown around too, and it seemed like 10 was mentioned by a few community members. But again, nothing was set in stone, and that was probably for the best, as the number would also be somewhat dependent on the number of highly-voted non-lesson levels in the set.

I don’t expect us to reach any sort of consensus on this now, especially since we’ll kind of have to play a lot of this by ear depending on how voting goes, but I just wanted to gauge community opinion on what sort of method should be used to compile a collection of lesson levels with which to begin CCLP1 without bringing numbers into the picture. Here’s a rundown of what options have been proposed so far:

- Voting on one collection of lesson levels among those created by designers who have submitted levels for CCLP1 consideration.

- Holding a separate round of voting just for all levels that were designed to be tutorials or could function as such and including a mixture of the highest-voted ones, each of which would focus on introducing different elements.

- Forgetting about "lesson" levels. Wait, what? Here’s another idea: instead of blocking off a section for lesson levels, we could just see what the landscape of highly-rated low-difficulty levels looks like, create our collection of tutorials from that, and add hints wherever needed.

I like these 3 options the best.

[pillowpc2001]

I'd lean towards either the "forget lesson levels" option, or have a vote on the lesson levels already created (either as a separate vote or just part of the regular CCLP1 voting) and use a combination of those results and the staff's judgement (i.e. making sure the top-voted levels aren't too similar, etc.) to determine the lesson levels.

[M11k4]

I love the idea of the staff modifying levels from the submission pool, and possibly creating a few new ones when needed. Voting a whole collection from someone's set is a bit much, and would not bring forth all the best individual designs. I don't see an extra round of voting being necessary, and would rather see the same energy directed elsewhere, though I guess I wouldn't be against it if others love the idea.

I think CCLP1 needs distinct and succinct lesson levels. If we want the set to reflect CC1, we have to include them. I feel they should be significantly shorter than the levels at the start of Pit of 100 Tiles. Lesson levels not only serve to introduce or remind players of the basics of game play, but they also quickly allow one to feel a sense of accomplishment by actually advancing well into the set in decent time. Compare CC1 to CCLP2 and CCLP3, where A Fleeting Memory and Toggle Bust completely kill the momentum at the start, though neither level is truly bad. I don't think the lesson levels should introduce all the tiles though, nor do I think we need specific lesson levels for additional tiles later in the set.

Thanks for listening and even asking in the first place

-Miika

[KeyboardWielder]

I agree with most of what Miika said about why lesson levels are required. I don't remember finding any submitted collection good enough in its entirety, and mixing them up would be a hash. So I would be in favor of the "Having the staff *" suggestions, which would basically mean that they can see what's voted in, pick up anything which looks like it fits well or could be polished to be so, and create new ones if required.

- Madhav.

[AdrenalinDragon]

I vote for whatever ends up in the top voting list at the end and the staff choosing the lesson levels if necessary.

[Syzygy]

Lessons are good. However, I feel the simplest lessons were kind of an insult to a person's intelligence. Lessons with a little more oomph to them would be nice. Something like Door Galore 1 from BHLS1LYNX might be good for a lesson level. If you put three or four lessons in one level.... like a key, a door, clone a block and push it in water, avoid the ball bouncing, pick up a chip, go to another section and exit. Simple yes, but not so small that it takes only 10 seconds to finish. Do you think new players would learn the lessons if you put more than one feature into each lesson level? They would still advance fast enough to feel "accomplishment".

I think Rey1 level 4 'Learning About Buttons' is pretty good. I only made one level that was really a lesson level but it's kinda long for what I think you're looking for. (Egyptian_Motif level 18 - Four Lessons in One) I also think the TS_Tutorials were pretty good in that they weren't so simple.

I guess what I'm saying is that the new players will not know how simple or complex they are until becoming experienced players. I don't think you'll chase them away by having a little bit of extra in the early levels. But you might if you have it too simple.

[IceyLava108]

I love the ideas of lesson levels and if we want CCLP1 to be an alternate to CC1, then I would say include them, but they should be a smaller bit more difficult but at least noob-friendly to that of the CC1 Lesson levels environment.

[budugoo]

I would vote in favour of having the lesson levels in the start, just like CC1.

Maybe we can name them "Lesson A, Lesson B" or "Lesson I, Lesson II" etc, if we want to keep them distinct from CC1.

[jblewis]

It's been a little while since voting began, so I thought I'd weigh in on this topic once more now that I've seen some of the reactions to the lesson levels featured in the voting packs. So far, I've noticed three trends:

- Ratings given to lesson levels that are far too hard for the first ten or so levels of CCLP1 are mixed, most likely because of their high difficulty.

- Ratings given to lesson levels that are very easy and appropriate for the first ten or so levels of CCLP1 range from mixed to negative, most likely because they feel far too easy for us as veterans.

- Ratings given to lesson levels that fall somewhere in between easy and difficult - but are still a bit too hard for that 1-10 range - are mostly positive.

At this point, after hearing what everyone has said on this thread, I'm beginning to lean more toward the "Having the staff..." suggestions myself as well, particularly in deciding what those first ten or so levels should be. The same principle would apply when we include levels with elements or types of gameplay with which we as veteran players have had negative experiences in the past that have affected our ratings (such as blobs or mazes). However, I've also got another idea. Why not include a series of "second-tier lessons"? This segment of CCLP1 (perhaps levels 11-20?) would be perfect for all of the medium-difficulty tutorials, the lesson levels that are simple but teach an advanced concept like partial posting, and longer (yet still very easy) non-lesson levels that stretch a simple concept out to multiple applications.