Archive: 77 posts

---

Hey folks. I've had an idea to make a x2 level for quite some time, so I've been slowly hacking away at it. The idea for a level has been in the works since Zephyr Valley 2 was published by mrsupercomputer, but I only recently nailed down the theme of the level. I'd probably describe is as the love child of Zephyr Valley, Sky Town, and Industrial Assistance. That said, I have about half of the level completed at this point, so I figured I might get some general feedback before getting much further. I'm not opening it up for testing yet, I just want to get some feedback on x2 levels as a whole. It is evident that levels of the cooperative nature tend to have very little story and consist of bite-size pieces of level that could be swapped out freely. What I mean by this is that most of the given level will consists of a handful of "rooms" where... You enter the room as a team. You must work together to complete a puzzle. Said puzzle is strictly cooperative in nature. Once the 'puzzle' is completed, you both exit the room together. I'm not saying this is a bad formula, this is just the norm... and it seems to work well. I actually see myself falling a bit into these habits. So, here is my question... if a level is deemed as a x2 (or 3 or 4) cooperative level, is it expected that every bit of the level exist as a showcase of cooperative puzzles? Would you guys like to see more platforming bits? Enemies? Something with a more developed story? The way my level has been laid out thus far is as a series of floating islands, ala the floating islands in Avatar. They don't look the same, but the premise is similar. Each island (or set of islands) contains a brief cooperative puzzle. Some are harder than others, and some are more elaborate, but in all cases you finish with an island before moving on. There is a brief amount of platforming between islands, and this could surely be expanding by adding strictly platforming islands. I have also made it my goal to include some nice, entertaining set-pieces. Expect dabbling with sack-cannons and some mild destruction of islands as you progress. So, in review... Do you think cooperative levels need to be strictly cooperative? Would you like to see more varied gameplay elements? How do you feel about larger set-pieces (actions or details that the player does not directly interact with)? Would you prefer to get more gameplay out of the level, or be treated to a more unique overall experience? Would you like to see a cooperative level with a more developed story? As it is, there is no real story... but surely one could be integrated. Finally... anyone have any clever names for my level? -------- This thread will also serve as a way to update progress and eventually to ask for testers. Thanks for reading!

2010-04-01 17:34:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Wow.. great questions. I like the flow of jack's Industrial Assistance for example, but it might be a cool twist to have other bits in the level that were non cooperative for some fun transition bits. From what I have been privileged to see of your wip, what you have is really good so far! Not sure about the other two questions though I find them really good ones. I think I may sit back and watch the fun for a bit before I comment. ..and I might even have a few suggestions for a name.

2010-04-01 17:56:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383

---

Yeah, see... therein lies my debacle. Everyone is quick to compare any x2 level with jackofcourse's pair (hell, I do it too), but I'm wondering if that's just because there is a vast shortage of levels doing it differently. Ladylyn1's latest level took the approach I'm leaning toward (I'm upset he beat me to it!), where the level is on a bit of a grander scale. I was disappointed with how short it was (but that's what so many details will do), but I liked the idea... expanding it into a more full-blown level. And this is meant as no offense to Jack, but I was privy to seeing Industrial Assistance 2 in create, and I noticed that the thermometer was only half-filled. I'm wondering what it could have been if he had taken it to the max.

2010-04-01 18:04:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

I've had an idea to make a x2 level for quite some time, so I've been slowly hacking away at it. Sounds like that level you were working on when I accidentally joined the other day. Certainly looked interesting. So, here is my question... if a level is deemed as a x2 (or 3 or 4) cooperative level, is it expected that every bit of the level exist as a showcase of cooperative puzzles? Not at all. If you check out some of the recent LBW2 entries (search for "lbw2"), the way in which they implement the two-player aspect is quite varied. TheAdipose's was not what I'd deem to be a two-player co-op level, since it was entirely competitive in nature, so that may not be relevant to what you're after. Many of the levels were largely single-player-compatible, with two-player areas spread out over the course of the level, although not in the same way as a story level, since completing the two-player areas were necessary to completing the level. Ethanbrec's entry was rather unusual in that it begins in a two-player co-op style, but ends with a competition between the players to 'win' the level. Would you guys like to see more platforming bits? Enemies? Something with a more developed story? I guess that's entirely subjective. Personally, I just find a good variety of different aspects to the level to be the most fulfilling. Do you think cooperative levels need to be strictly cooperative? Well, that's kinda true by definition, no? Would you like to see more varied gameplay elements? Always. How do you feel about larger set-pieces (actions or details that the player does not directly interact with)? I think they're usually good to throw into the mix, as long as you can 'skip' them on a replay if they cause the level to become non-interactive for an extended length of time. Would you prefer to get more gameplay out of the level, or be treated to a more unique overall experience? Why do these have to be mutually exclusive? What's wrong with "unique gameplay"? Would you like to see a cooperative level with a more developed story? I think a certain amount of plot, or at least enough to provide the player with the motivation for their character, can add something to the level, but it's by no means necessary. jackofcourse's two IA levels have no real plot, but are still awesome. Finally... anyone have any clever names for my level? Probably a bit premature to come up with a name at this stage.

2010-04-01 18:12:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

This level certainly is looking awesome up to now It's a good question whether to all has to be co-op. This is something that I was thinking about myself during IA2, hence having the small split screen race in it. I personally think that the majority should indeed be co-op related, and other parts should be used as a like a break and a bit of a change in pace. IA2 finished on about 80% I think! There was certainly lots more room to play with!

2010-04-01 18:18:00 Author: jackofcourse Posts: 1494

---

It's a good question whether to all has to be co-op. This is something that I was thinking about myself during IA2, hence having the small split screen race in it. Actually that reminds me of something we discussed while you were still building that level. The reason why you often get the 'small rooms' with co-op levels is that the checkpoint system is a little awkward. If you want to have a section whereby the players have to work in separate areas of the level, and neither can access the other's section, then you have the problem whereby, if one of them dies, and the areas are too large, it's a long way back to the nearest checkpoint. Annoyingly, you can't just put a nearby checkpoint in each of the two sections, since you can't force the player to respawn through the correct one... ...if that makes sense.

2010-04-01 18:25:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Yeah, it makes sense. It is possible to set up some complex logic rigs in every room to coax a respawn into the correct place, but it's really not worth it to me (the thermo usage the logic would require notwithstanding). As it is now, the players are never too separated, and (while they are not actually enclosed) the islands act as sequential rooms. I guess that's just the best way to go about it. I guess my concern is that players may become annoyed with puzzle after puzzle, especially when some of them take a bit to figure out. I'm wondering... ...everyone likes bubble chains and combos, right? (ok, good) Perhaps I can work out how to include more platforming bits, with semi-mutliple paths. This way, I can set up combos to reward players for finding the best multi-player path. Eh, sounds like a lot of fuss, but it could work out nicely.

2010-04-01 18:32:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

TBH a 2-player only level should be absolutely gameplay-oriented at it's core. If you think about it, why else would you make a 2-player level other than to implement 2-player gameplay and with that in mind, everything else is just estras. Story, visuals etc. shouldn't really be the core of a 2p level as it simply makes no sense. You can put visuals and story at the core of any level. To that end, I think that gameplay should be the starting point. If you make a 2-player level that is a visual triumph, or has an in-depth but has no interesting 2-player pieces (read: level is just stock gameplay), then the question to ask is why the hell am I bothering to make this 2p? Basically, unique 2p mechanics are what will make the level stand out, overall. Absolutely take the time to pretty it up as well, just don't make som pretty scenes and throw down some tired, formulaic gameplay in there. And as Aya said, motivational narrative is always a bonus. It gives the level a sense of purpose, gives the players more of a sense of achievement at completion and can also tie the thing together. As for whether it all needs to be co-op, or all needs to be puzzles or whatever. No, of course it doesn't. But it's probably best to minimise the solo-able sections, simply because otherwise you are back to "what's the point in this being 2 player?" question. In terms of length, if you actually have need for co-operation, in terms of actually doing some co-operative puzzle solving or platforming, rather than following a pretty obvious set of button pushes (another major issue with 2P levels) then it's going to take a fair amount of co-ordination and so making it longer may well make it a drag. If you keep the set pieces unique then you should be able to give an awesome experience in an average-length level, and still have plenty of room for the visual details. In terms of ideas for gameplay elements all I can say is to reduce the amount of downtime for each player. Just think about what characterises most 2player level dynamics: player 1 does something. Then Player 2 does something else. Then player 1 does something, then player 2 does something. Half the time you are just waiting for your mate. Now, if player 1 is doing something while player 2 is doing something else, you will have a far more involved 2P experience, especially if some manner of co-ordination of timings is required. Edit - I wasn't really directly answering any of your questions, just undirected ramblings. This week has been far to complex for me to actually answer questions, I just wanted to throw down some points

2010-04-01 18:54:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

I guess my concern is that players may become annoyed with puzzle after puzzle, especially when some of them take a bit to figure out. I'm wondering... Depends if you want to build a good challenging level (which often don't get rated very highly), or pander to the masses (in which case, sadly, you can probably get a whole bunch o' hearts for building yet another bomb survival). Personally I'm a big fan of levels which force me to think, rather than those akin to the Fire Pits in the story levels (gah that level is irritating) which require you to have superhuman reflexes, but it seems that the masses would disagree with me. A reasonable compromise might be to make some of the 'harder' challenges optional, but reward the players with large caches of score bubbles for successfully completing them. However, I'd wait until after you've had some people beta test it before making a decision. It's difficult to be objective about your own level, and consequently, the majority of players could easily find some of your 'hard' puzzles easy, and some of your 'easy' puzzles hard. ...everyone likes bubble chains and combos, right? (ok, good) Y'know, I find those to be less relevant in two-player levels. I find that fighting to get all the combos to get the high score is largely a single-player thing.

2010-04-01 19:02:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

* Do you think cooperative levels need to be strictly cooperative? Would you like to see more varied gameplay elements? Not in the slightest. There's nothing wrong with a bit of platforming/enemies/boss battles being mixed in. * How do you feel about larger set-pieces (actions or details that the player does not directly interact with)? Would you prefer to get more gameplay out of the level, or be treated to a more unique overall experience? Unique overall experience, but don't take away from the gameplay too much. * Would you like to see a cooperative level with a more developed story? As it is, there is no real story... but surely one could be integrated. Definitely, it would make your level much more unique. * Finally... anyone have any clever names for my level? A Helping Hand? Good luck! =D http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/272671-Blackfalcon/671/5/animal0064hb2_display.gif

2010-04-01 19:03:00 Author: Blackfalcon Posts: 409

---

It appears I have much to think about. And, rtm, I wasn't suggesting that the level not be cooperative... it would be filled with x2 puzzles, but I was just wondering if a standard platforming bit would be out of place, such as a series of jumps or timing obstacles. I'd imagine not, but I was just verifying.

2010-04-01 21:45:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Sounds good! (10 Points for Shortest post here!) Also, I've alway wondered why no ones ever done a X3 Player level? I've seen many (Ok, only afew nice ones) X2 & X4, but never a X3? I'm sure someone like you (Anyone that has posted here ^) could come up with a Creative Challenge requiring 3 Players?

2010-04-01 22:00:00 Author: Nurolight Posts: 918

---

Sure... but creating a level full of them would be tough. I don't like the idea because getting three in a party is much less likely then getting two. That's just cutting down on your market.

2010-04-01 22:12:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

* Do you think cooperative levels need to be strictly cooperative? Would you like to see more varied gameplay elements? For multi-player levels you can really only chose between co-op play or competition play. I can't think of any other category that couldn't end up being solo play. * How do you feel about larger set-pieces (actions or details that the player does not directly interact with)? Would you prefer to get more gameplay out of the level, or be treated to a more unique overall experience? I would like to be treated to a more unique overall gameplay experience! I agree with RTM that a multi-player level should probably concentrate on gameplay, but I think there is also room for nifty new scene elements that are cool to see. (appropriate for any level imho) * Would you like to see a cooperative level with a more developed story? As it is, there is no real story... but surely one could be integrated. I wouldn't worry too much about a story if I were you, unless you get inspired and something comes naturally. Otherwise, you might end up "forcing" something into a 2 player situation which ends up being awkward or overly contrived. * Finally... anyone have any clever names for my level? "Comphermc's Cleverly Named 2 Player Level". (You may not believe this, but I really didn't spend a lot of time thinking about it. It came to me as an inspiration.)

2010-04-01 22:17:00 Author: RoharDragontamer Posts: 397

---

I vote for cooperation needed to initiate/complete obstacles, but have it competitive throughout, awarding points based on performance.

2010-04-02 00:16:00 Author: Gravel Posts: 1308

---

I played a tiny bit of this a while back, i liked what you're going for comph. * Do you think cooperative levels need to be strictly cooperative? Would you like to see more varied gameplay elements? Nope but the more quirky ways you can get players to help each other proceed the better. 2P levels are inherently funny i think, especially when you have to save your partner from certain doom. * How do you feel about larger set-pieces (actions or details that the player does not directly interact with)? Would you prefer to get more gameplay out of the level, or be treated to a more unique overall experience? As long as they're entertaining to watch, yep! * Would you like to see a cooperative level with a more developed story? As it is, there is no real story... but surely one could be integrated. Personally i reckon it would be great, its a pretty rare thing, but it's entirely down to how you feel about doing one. Either way works for me, 2P levels are still very much an unexplored niche, they feel fresh whichever direction you take them. * Finally... anyone have any clever names for my level? Island Hoppers? Peninsula Pairings? Archipelago a Go-Go?

2010-04-02 01:16:00 Author: julesyjules Posts: 1156

---

Archipelago a Go-Go? Haha. I think I'm going to need to incorporate 'archipelagos' somehow...

2010-04-02 01:19:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Those are some interesting questions about co-operative game play, that's for sure. I too was thinking about making a co-op level after I'm done the one I'm working on now, so just reading through this thread has helped stir my brain into action. Awesome! * Do you think cooperative levels need to be strictly cooperative? Would you like to see more varied gameplay elements? No, I don't think the level needs to be strictly co-operative, but I think a heavy emphasis should definitely be placed on co-op play. By creating a level with even one co-op obstacle in it you have, in effect, created a co-op level, as it is impassible without more than one person. That's gonna cut the number of players that can play your level in half, because there's a lot of people who play alone. So if you're gonna go co-op, I think you should go full co-op. Not to mention, there's already plenty of great one player levels out there people can get their kicks from. There's quite a few good co-op ones too, but not near enough, I say! * How do you feel about larger set-pieces (actions or details that the player does not directly interact with)? Would you prefer to get more gameplay out of the level, or be treated to a more unique overall experience? I think I'd vouch for game play in a co-op level. My favorite co-op level is the two towers one, by GrantosUK. I do think of it as a unique experience, and it has very little in the way of set piece action sequences and such. But since you're not making a survival challenge, sure some set pieces would be nice! just not so many that the Co-op gets lost in the mix. * Would you like to see a cooperative level with a more developed story? As it is, there is no real story... but surely one could be integrated Well... I've found that players attention span decreases exponentially with the number of people in the level with them. I like playing story levels solo. With 2 or more, things just get whacky. A simple back story would be nice, but I'd say you should keep your plot twists and emotion stirring bombs for another time.

2010-04-02 06:54:00 Author: Duffluc Posts: 402

---

An idea for a name could be Atmospheric Aid? I think a mild plot for why the two sackpeople are where they are and why they need to traverse the islands would be appropriate plus some small things happening in the background like airships and such. As for it being a unique overall experience or about gameplay, can it be evenly made up of both?

2010-04-02 07:33:00 Author: Arctos13 Posts: 258

---

Airships in the background could be fun... It's sort of in a ruined state as it is, but that could look cool. I'm thinking that I can get a big chunk of this worked out today and I might be able to open it up for super-early testing. In the very least, I will get some pictures up to whet appetites, and provide a basis for what the level will be like. I also just thought of a potential name. It's punny (as desired) but doesn't have a cooperative ring to (hence the subtitle): Stratisfaction: A Cooperative Adventure Edit: Supportive Stratisfaction? Edit2: Cloudy with a Chance of Teamwork. Haha... I am so lame... but I kinda like it.

2010-04-02 13:48:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

I love what I seen so far. Great mechanics and visuals. As for a name, I have no clue as of now... I'l try though!

2010-04-02 14:39:00 Author: KQuinn94Z Posts: 1758

---

i havent seen the lvl so i cant help with name but Cloudy with a Chance of Teamwork. Sounds nice ..... Haha

2010-04-02 14:54:00 Author: The_Lil_JoKeR Posts: 745

---

Cloudy with a Chance of Teamwork. Haha... I am so lame... but I kinda like it. Nice, or if it's a true puzzler: "Cloudy with a Chance of Brain" or just "Brainclouds".

2010-04-02 15:23:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

"Archipelago Astuteness" =P

2010-04-02 16:03:00 Author: Richasackboy Posts: 619

---

Hey folks. As promised, I have an early version of the level up for initial testing. I'm at about 3/4 thermo, so I still have room for several more islands/puzzles. What is up so far is basically polished, except for background details and a few tweaks... I have yet to put clouds around the base of the initial island/tower, so ignore that. There is a little shortcut of green dissolve that skips half of the level... ignore that as well. I've been going for a loooong time and need a break. If you would like to test, put 987987 into my Do Not Play lockbox. Remember, it's a 2 player level, so you'll need a friend. Keys don't work? Find a friend who can get it for you.

2010-04-03 06:35:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

I'll go check it out. TBH, i agree with rtm. 2P levels should mostly revolve around gameplay. A shallow story would be nice touch, such as Howdy Partners, not anything crazy, with no surprising plot twists, no unexpected breakups or anything of that sort. I'll check out the level tonight.

2010-04-03 06:58:00 Author: srgt_poptart Posts: 425

---

It'd be good if there were enemies/mini-bosses that took 2 players to beat(like puzzles but more exciting) for example one player moves a shield to protect other player and player 2 shoots gun. Also, add platforming bits but maybe make them more competitive? Also, add detail and scenery last(so you add gameplay then see how much thermo left)

2010-04-03 13:11:00 Author: Unknown User

---

It'd be good if there were enemies/mini-bosses that took 2 players to beat I actually have a little baddy that requires two people, but I'm poor enough at character design that I probably won't include it. Also, add detail and scenery last(so you add gameplay then see how much thermo left This used to be my methodology, but I'm moving more towards a holistic building ideology. Since we have a limitation in the thermo, I will build accordingly, so some parts of the level don't look like utter crap.

2010-04-03 14:49:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Names: I got nothing! I'm so helpful ))))

2010-04-03 15:37:00 Author: KQuinn94Z Posts: 1758

---

If you would like to test, put 987987 into my Do Not Play lockbox. It's really hard to test using two pads. Feedback part one... More respawn points needed, even if only during testing phase. e.g. there's only one for the first three islands, so if one of the players dies, then the other has to go all the way back to the start to respawn the second player. In the same vein, if you're going to use a standard four-life entrance point, but use infinite-life checkpoints, then you should probably have an infinite life checkpoint very close to the start of the level to ensure that the players don't have to restart the level should they fail to get to the first infinite-life checkpoint before losing all four of those lives. Too much ceiling grabbery in first paintinator section. Inexplicable piece of cardboard bobbing up and down on the island with the small platform which revolves around it. Visible grab switch and piston on the section you pull down to reveal a paint switch. There's also something odd about that bit. If you stand on the platform just above the grab switch, you vibrate, which usually means either something isn't glued correctly, or you've got a connector length conflict. ...more to come.

2010-04-03 16:19:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Thanks, Aya. I made a slew of changes, none of which fix the things you've mentioned. Any idea how do fix the ceiling grabs in the paint section? Requiring a grab is the only way I can think of to make the person with paint stay down below. Good call about the checkpoints on the islands... I'm going to fix that one right now.

2010-04-03 17:01:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Name idea: Aerial Ballet. Of course, I may be too late since I haven't read any of the rest of these posts. :B

2010-04-03 17:43:00 Author: SLS10 Posts: 1129

---

Any idea how do fix the ceiling grabs in the paint section? If you can get that flipper to work, I'd say flippers are inherently more fun than grabby ceilings. Another transition you haven't used yet is a simple moving platform from one island to the next. You could add in some sort of danger element that the players have to dodge somewhere between the two to make it slightly more challenging. The other advantage of thin gas vs. invisible DM to prevent layer changing (besides not having to box-select) is that thin gas can intersect other objects, so you can create a great big slab of it if need be. Good call about the checkpoints on the islands... I'm going to fix that one right now. If you can get it so that the respawn points aren't too far back as to be irritating, but at the same time don't allow the second player to bypass their part of each puzzle by suiciding once the first player reaches the next checkpoint, that'd be ideal. Other than that - a good level. Some very innovative puzzles in there. I particularly liked one which is akin to the boat propulsion in Cap'n Sackbeard's Booty. There's just enough visual cues to make it soluable, but it's not too blatent. If you've got the thermo space to add a bit more to it, that would be good too.

2010-04-03 19:33:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

If you can get that flipper to work, I'd say flippers are inherently more fun than grabby ceilings. I think I got it to work. I tested it with one person, and we had no problems. That lower flipper is a bit iffy, but if you fall, the checkpoint is right there. Another transition you haven't used yet is a simple moving platform from one island to the next. You could add in some sort of danger element that the players have to dodge somewhere between the two to make it slightly more challenging. Ah, silly me. That is a great idea. Don't know yet how that will work, but it's a nice jumping off point. The other advantage of thin gas vs. invisible DM to prevent layer changing (besides not having to box-select) is that thin gas can intersect other objects, so you can create a great big slab of it if need be. Yep, I've used it already, and noticed that exact advantage. I'm loving that I can also grab it at will, so no more hunting it down. Thanks so much for that. If you can get it so that the respawn points aren't too far back as to be irritating, but at the same time don't allow the second player to bypass their part of each puzzle by suiciding once the first player reaches the next checkpoint, that'd be ideal. Yeah, I would normally litter the level with an abundance of checkpoints, but I have to be careful that obstacles are not passable by popping. Hence, it was my goal to make longer puzzles conclude with a simple x2 component. I don't know how well I've done that, but I'm definitely not ignoring the advice. Other than that - a good level. Some very innovative puzzles in there. I particularly liked one which is akin to the boat propulsion in Cap'n Sackbeard's Booty. There's just enough visual cues to make it soluable, but it's not too blatent. Thanks. That whole puzzle is far from failure safe, though. Sometimes the rock doesn't shoot out far enough. I'm trying to think of a way to make it work a little nicer. In fact, I think I just had an idea... currently, the cannon-thingy actually launches the rock, as it would the player... perhaps I can just use a winch to pull it into the tree. If you've got the thermo space to add a bit more to it, that would be good too. Oh for sure. I just wanted to get some earlier feedback on the level thus far. If I hadn't done so, I wouldn't be able to as easily apply the feedback you've been giving me. Thanks again.

2010-04-03 20:09:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Do you think cooperative levels need to be strictly cooperative? For a cooperative level it wouldn't necessarily have to be strict two players required for everything. Would you like to see more varied gameplay elements? A cool idea for a cooperative level would be an enemy/boss that requires both of the players to defeat. Like while one player distracts the enemy or something to provoke it the other would be doing another thing to attack the enemy. How do you feel about larger set-pieces (actions or details that the player does not directly interact with)? Set pieces are always nice to have in a level it always impresses me when I see them. An example would be the statue of Liberty in Faith rip's ice age level and the 3D usage in Atomic Assistance by ladylyn1. Would you prefer to get more gameplay out of the level, or be treated to a more unique overall experience? I would say unique overall experience. I enjoy it more. Would you like to see a cooperative level with a more developed story? As it is, there is no real story... but surely one could be integrated. A slight story maybe not full out but just a touch of one would be nice. Finally... anyone have any clever names for my level? I can't say until I would know what it is like. I would really like to be one of your testers by the way.

2010-04-03 20:58:00 Author: bmoney2310 Posts: 187

---

* Do you think cooperative levels need to be strictly cooperative? Would you like to see more varied gameplay elements? Cooperative. It's much more fun that way. * How do you feel about larger set-pieces (actions or details that the player does not directly interact with)? Would you prefer to get more gameplay out of the level, or be treated to a more unique overall experience? The gameplay is the key here. It has to look cool and all that also though. * Would you like to see a cooperative level with a more developed story? As it is, there is no real story... but surely one could be integrated. The story doesn't need to be much. Something small like the Islands bloom to flovers when you complete the puzzle in them. * Finally... anyone have any clever names for my level? No, I'm horrible in coming up with titles.

2010-04-04 09:11:00 Author: Chamion B Posts: 124

---

Yep, I've used it already, and noticed that exact advantage. I'm loving that I can also grab it at will, so no more hunting it down. Other thin gas uses that Sehven pointed out were for a tilt sensor, and logic devices that can be re-emitted on top of themselves without blocking the emitter (if you only use DM and gas). I mean, you can use thick gas, but you get that annoying buzzing noise when you're near it, so it's pretty handy stuff. Theck gas is kinda similar to thin, but you can combine thin and theck gas to attach completely invisible logic to something like a vehicle (wobble logic tends to work better than piston logic in moving objects), and as for thack gas, well that's just evil in the wrong hands. I just wanted to get some earlier feedback on the level thus far. Well worth getting feedback early on. I often test out new parts for jackofcourse. I was quite intrigued by the modular way he builds levels, much like you're doing now. It's much easier to judge thermo usage by doing it that way, and it's also fairly trivial to change the order of the 'chunks' later on.

2010-04-04 10:02:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Yep, building modularly is ideal for any level. I've tried to do so in every level to date, but invariably end up gluing together half of the level (accidents, you see!). It just works so nicely in the event that... Something goes horribly wrong I decide to remove a section I decide to add a section The 160 hour bug rears its ugly head (easier to copy to a new level) ...although I'm sure that's fairly obvious. --- As for the gassy logic... has rtm shown you his little trick for emitting logic? Since I use strictly piston/winch logic, I can pause and use the grid to pull the arms of the logic outside their normal range (or inside their normal range). When the logic emits, the connectors self correct, as they would any other time you over-extend them. It does so "instantaneously" so the logic is allowed to emit and correct itself, without triggering any of the outputs. Sure, it has its limits, but I used in Interstellar Infiltration for that little collapsing zipline. There was logic and moving parts, yet it was handled with a simple emitter (no demitter). But yes, gassy logic would work even better (but I like to see what's going on!).

2010-04-04 14:27:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

When the logic emits, the connectors self correct, as they would any other time you over-extend them. It does so "instantaneously" so the logic is allowed to emit and correct itself, without triggering any of the outputs. I haven't actually had the need to emit logic so far, but then I haven't really built any proper levels yet. The only time I considered it was for the vehicle part on that "Examples for synchronizerman" level, but I thought it simpler in that case to have the 'puzzle' reset by having the vehicle drive backwards to return to its originial position, which also seemed slightly more realistic than having a new vehicle magically appear out of thin air.

2010-04-04 15:30:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

* Do you think cooperative levels need to be strictly cooperative? Would you like to see more varied gameplay elements? I think there's nothing wrong with throwing in some platforming elements. Variety makes levels less monotonous, a good mix of puzzles, platforming and other gameplay elements should help. * How do you feel about larger set-pieces (actions or details that the player does not directly interact with)? Would you prefer to get more gameplay out of the level, or be treated to a more unique overall experience? Details are always nice but hurt the thermo. Hmmmmm....the best scenario would be to have detailed moving set-pieces while also having great gameplay. * Would you like to see a cooperative level with a more developed story? As it is, there is no real story... but surely one could be integrated. A story would be great. Doing puzzles for the sake of puzzles is fun but if you have a reason to do it, it might entice more people to get to the end. * Finally... anyone have any clever names for my level? I'll have to think on this.

2010-04-04 16:14:00 Author: Silverpanther Posts: 156

---

Thanks! Yep, there are already a few very small platforming bits that do not require two players. I hope they have been integrated in a way that the player doesn't notice that there is a gameplay shift. They are brief, so there may not even be enough time to notice! As for the set pieces, I only have two big ones thus far. To start, there is a big cannon to begin the level, following a simple x2 puzzle. Secondly, there is a puzzle/scene with a big tree that is quickly becoming my favorite part of the level. The goal is for the players to inadvertently solve the puzzle, and then think "Wow!" when they do it. I'm trying to think of other puzzles that could follow this same formula. --- For anyone who is keeping score at home, I have updated the beta level with some more details in the background (the little distant islands are now more detailed and in the glitch layers, as are the clouds). Also, the tree scene *should* be more reliable now. --- As for the name... I am loving: Cloudy with a Chance of Teamwork --- Always happy to receive feedback.

2010-04-04 16:34:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

I'd like to see some action-based x2 gameplay. As far as I've seen a lot seems to be more puzzle orientated. Here's one of my idea's, which might make a nice finale. Take a plane (Not a prop with diagonal rockets) and make P1 drive. Attatch a gun turret and put P2 in it. Spawn limitless hordes of drone aircraft. P2 shoots them down while P1 tries to get them both to the end. I think it would be very fun and generally awesome, like something out of an action movie. As for enemies, they could be on rails or you could try and devise some way to make them track the vehicle using Sensors or Mag Keys. Either way, I would enjoy more actiony battles as well as classic puzzles. And when it's finished, it would be an honour to play it through with you.

2010-04-04 18:25:00 Author: DoomedHero Posts: 14

---

Well, I'm not sure a plane would fit with the design of the level thus far... but I will likely do something more action oriented to conclude the level. I have 1/4 thermo left, and it's about time to wrap it up. I like the idea of players working together to finish something on a grander scale... but removing the puzzle element altogether might not be he best fit for the level. Thanks for the feedback/ideas!

2010-04-04 19:03:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

I played this earlier and loved it, but I'm about to go back and look for problems. *Puts on Simon Cowell mask

2010-04-04 19:42:00 Author: X-FROGBOY-X Posts: 1800

---

I've been working on a cooperative level for LBW2 (yeah, I'm a little overdue ), and my goal from the start was to make a 2 player story level. All the puzzles are part of this story, not merely mechanics. I also considered making some cutscenes between the two players, but that might get a bit tricky. So, I'd say yes, do integrate a story. My level has some light platforming/hazards in between puzzles, but I think that's more a matter of personal preference. Strictly puzzles will give the level a more leasurely pace, some hazards make the players feel less safe.

2010-04-04 22:18:00 Author: Rogar Posts: 2284

---

For anyone who is keeping score at home, I have updated the beta level with some more details in the background (the little distant islands are now more detailed and in the glitch layers, as are the clouds). Also, the tree scene *should* be more reliable now. Just retested. Looks much better with the islands/clouds in the background, and the extra checkpoints are a welcome sight. A few extra thoughts... Perhaps replace some of the thick gas with thack gas to get rid of the annoying buzzing noise. It's very noticable right at the start of the level, although it's unclear whether this was intentional for the visual effect. You can probably remove the R1 stickers from those few grabbable objects which have them, since their presence, or lack thereof, is not consistent throughout the level. Furthermore, you very quickly establish the clear visual cue that 'orange' equals 'grabbable', so they seem largely redundant, slightly intrusive, and possibly a tad patronizing. Since you seem to have replaced all the two-way switches with custom ones, might you be able to do the same for the buttons? In the section with the two buttons, how about instead of the orange arrow (I notice you got rid of the one from the box section), you use a cutscene mouth to show the island on the left descending into view or somesuch? In the section where you shoot the cogwheel, the custom two-way switch seems to be backwards. Same section, sometimes the tree fails to fall when the rock is launched at it. Same section, the flipper might need tweaking as it launches you too far once you've moved the tree out of the way, although I'm thinking this might be intentional, to make it harder to get the point bubbles on the right-hand side of the next island.

2010-04-04 23:54:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

* Would you like to see a cooperative level with a more developed story? As it is, there is no real story... but surely one could be integrated. The story doesn't need to be much. Something small like the Islands bloom to flowers when you complete the puzzle in them. I love this idea, very Nintendo-esque!

2010-04-05 00:27:00 Author: julesyjules Posts: 1156

---

Perhaps replace some of the thick gas with thack gas to get rid of the annoying buzzing noise. It's very noticable right at the start of the level, although it's unclear whether this was intentional for the visual effect. Will do, but I need to get some from you first. You can probably remove the R1 stickers from those few grabbable objects which have them, since their presence, or lack thereof, is not consistent throughout the level. Furthermore, you very quickly establish the clear visual cue that 'orange' equals 'grabbable', so they seem largely redundant, slightly intrusive, and possibly a tad patronizing. Mkay, then. Since you seem to have replaced all the two-way switches with custom ones, might you be able to do the same for the buttons? So make it look like a button but make it controlled by a searchlight? Interesting. I have stickered them orange, however subtle that may be. In the section with the two buttons, how about instead of the orange arrow (I notice you got rid of the one from the box section), you use a cutscene mouth to show the island on the left descending into view or somesuch? I wanted to avoid any magic mouths, but since I broke down and included them eventually, it's probably a good idea. In the section where you shoot the cogwheel, the custom two-way switch seems to be backwards. Yeah... oops! Just noticed that when taking my girlfriend through. Fixed now, as well as the visible winch... but dangit, there is a visible emitter I forgot to fix. Same section, sometimes the tree fails to fall when the rock is launched at it. Is this when the rock comes up short, or it just never falls? That part is such a pain to get right. Same section, the flipper might need tweaking as it launches you too far once you've moved the tree out of the way, although I'm thinking this might be intentional, to make it harder to get the point bubbles on the right-hand side of the next island. Completely intentional, but maybe too difficult at this point. Tweaks are probable.

2010-04-05 00:59:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Will do, but I need to get some from you first. If I wasn't so obsessed with building a showcase level for all this glitchy stuff I have, I'd've already published it by now, and you'd be able to pick it up from a level already. I'm considering scrapping this idea, and publishing sooner, but I think without demonstrating the uses, some players might not understand how useful some of this stuff actually is. Mkay, then. The choices of materials, colors, and other paradigms you've used are actually so consistent throughout the level, that it's almost unnecessary to give the players any additional hints, like the R1 stickers and the arrows pointing which way to go, particularly for a puzzle-oriented level. If the player can't figure out that they need to grab orange things, they're gonna seriously struggle throughout the level anyway. So make it look like a button but make it controlled by a searchlight? Interesting. I have stickered them orange, however subtle that may be. I hadn't put too much thought into the actual design, and I mainly brought it up due to your recent post on alternatives to the MM switches. I just thought it'd be kinda neat if you could build a level without using any of them, since with such a consistent use of materials, they kinda stick out a bit. On the other hand, maybe that's desirable in some cases, e.g when they're slightly concealed by another object like in the "section with the two buttons" I previously referred to. Making it tough to see where the switches are is not the sort of 'challenge' you really want to be including in a level. TBH, I hadn't noticed that the buttons were stickered. I wanted to avoid any magic mouths, but since I broke down and included them eventually, it's probably a good idea. I think if you can get away without using any at all, that'd be really neat, but once you've resigned yourself to using them, you may as well use them consistently, which in this case seems to be to point out things which occur as a result of the players' actions, but are beyond the visible limit of the screen, which is a very common use for magic mouths. It's a real shame that camera zones can only zoom out so far, otherwise triggering a zoomed out camera zone to show these events would be less intrusive. I wonder if a camera zone where you zoom out fully, and tilt the camera to its maximum extent in the x-axis would provide a broad enough view to be able to see these things happen without having to use magic mouths? Is this when the rock comes up short, or it just never falls? That part is such a pain to get right. I think it just came up short. It was kinda weird. Part of the tree fell off, but then nothing else happened. I was, however, able to push the rock closer to the tree to trigger the rest of the sequence. Completely intentional, but maybe too difficult at this point. Tweaks are probable. If it's intentional, that's fine. It could do with being a little harder in some places. Oh, and while I remember, if you haven't already, it might be worth testing with 3+ sackpeople to check to see if you can exploit the increased number of players to bypass some of the puzzles.

2010-04-05 01:55:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Oh, and while I remember, if you haven't already, it might be worth testing with 3+ sackpeople to check to see if you can exploit the increased number of players to bypass some of the puzzles. I've done it with four people. Some puzzles change slightly, but not by much, and the overall feel of puzzle is maintained. Mostly it just means that two people have to do the same thing. I will advertise it as a x2 level, so while any more will still be possible, it will just a lesser experience. I'll consider the custom buttons. It would be nice to do away with all MM switches (except for the invisible grabby ones), but you make good points about it not being obvious. I'll just be content with the stickering! --- Also, I was tweaking the shooting of the rock, and I thought I had it fixed, but I guess not. It was after these tweaks that I accidentally left the switch in the inverted setting, so you must have had it break after that. Poo... more tweaks, I guess. Edit: Oh! Before I forget, there is a little tiny island about halfway through with an arm that swings 180 degrees under the platform. Originally, grabbing on the switch underneath held the little door open, so they had to coordinate to get through. It is now permanent because people were too lazy to figure it out and just popped to get past it. Should I revisit that puzzle?

2010-04-05 02:55:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

oh gosh I love this idea! -It's true that coop levels tend to be too formal. -I'd love to see a story driven coop level. -There could be some point where P1 is upstairs and P2 is below, an enemy approaches and each have to pop one brain each so they kill the enemy together. Just an idea... -I started brainstorming about a title and I think choosing a gemstone oriented title could be nice. I'm looking forward to this

2010-04-05 03:11:00 Author: Chump Posts: 1712

---

I actually made a rough-looking baddies that is too tall to do any damage to... Basically, one person has to jump into his mouth, whereupon it eats him/her. When he has eaten the player, his arms pop out sideways, allowing the second person to climb up and pop his brain. I liked it, but never got it to look nice, and I'm not sure it would fit now. Edit: Oh, Aya! I know why it didn't work! You must have gone straight for the paint, knowing that it was already "open," right? Well, the tree is initially help in pace by a rod (so it doesn't move around prior to arriving at the puzzle). Anyways, if you don't launch yourself up there first, the rock wont break the tree. As soon as both the player and the rock hit the tree, it will fall. I think we're good. Phew!

2010-04-05 03:22:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

I've done it with four people. Some puzzles change slightly, but not by much, and the overall feel of puzzle is maintained. Cool. So many creators forget to test their levels (particularly one-player levels) with more sackpeople, which can sometimes completely ruin the mechanics. I'll consider the custom buttons. In retrospect it's not a big deal. It's a lot of effort for a relatively marginal win. Originally, grabbing on the switch underneath held the little door open, so they had to coordinate to get through. It is now permanent because people were too lazy to figure it out and just popped to get past it. Should I revisit that puzzle? It's funny you mention that one, because it seemed as if that one grab switch was inconsistent with the others. There's a general difference in the designs of those which have a lasting effect vs. those which only do something while you're holding on to them. I was gonna point that out, but thought it was a little too picky. As a consequence, when I was first analyzing that puzzle, I initially couldn't figure out how the guy on top would be able to go through the door while the other player is travelling. It was only after realizing that the bottom grab switch went via a p-switch that I realized how simple it was. The question is, if you changed it back, is it too hard to figure out, or is it just a case of forcing the lazier players to solve it by preventing them from popping past it? If only the latter, then I'd say it's worth revisiting. The only puzzle that took me more than a couple of seconds to figure out was the one akin to the boat propulsion in Cap'n Sackbeard's Booty, and personally I always find that the longer it takes to figure out a puzzle, the greater the sense of satisfaction you get when you finally manage it. Ditto for tough platforming sections - I suspect quite a few people were quite pleased when they made it all the way through the wheel of death in the bunker for the first time. The only warning about having 2x puzzles which require very precise timing, is you need to account for lag. Sometimes even a small amount can make it nigh-impossible to complete the task, so you might need to slow down the orbital platform to ensure that the player on it has plenty of time to hang on to the grab button long enough for the other to get through the door, while still allowing them enough time to drop back onto the orbital platform before it passes their position. Point is, as long as they've worked out how to do it, it's a tad harsh to then punish them for not having superhuman reflexes and/or a good internet connection. On the subject of more unusal 2x puzzles, the 'swinging' one in Interstellar Infiltration was quite ingenious. Had you not tipped me off to the solution, I might not have figured it out, which is kinda ironic since I had previously devised a similar puzzle whilst I was still considering building a level for the LBW2 competition. My puzzle was a simple sensor-activated flipper which the players used to get onto a platform above them, and directly above this platform was a lethal hazard. The flipper was configured such that the sackpeople would always be launched high enough to hit the hazard. The solution was to have the sackpeople hold onto each other when walking onto the flipper such that their increased mass as a single entity was enough to prevent the launcher from making them hit the hazard. Took a bit of tweaking, but I managed to get it to work. I think it's okay to include a puzzle that's quite difficult to solve, but you might have to add in some hints and/or make it optional (e.g. just a way to score some bonus points) if you want to avoid less imaginative players from quitting the level in frustration. There was actually quite an interesting thread (http://forums.littlebigworkshop.com/t5/General-Discussion/Difficulty-of-levels/td-p/228851) on the subject of level difficulty on LBW, in which I said... You can conceptually break down any level into a set of 'challenges', regardless of whether a level has a linear or free-roaming structure. Of those 'challenges', there are those which are hard because they require the player to have a near-flawless sense of timing, such as the infamous "Wheel of Death" in "The Bunker", and there are those which are hard because they present the player with a unique puzzle which they've never encountered before, and are forced to use their brain to continue, such as, perhaps, the three blocks puzzle at the start of "A Navy Frigate" from the PotC pack. The problem with the latter category is that once you've solved that puzzle, then any time you encounter it, or a simple variant of it, in another level in the future, then it's no longer 'hard'. Consequently, for the unimaginative creator, it's much easier to make the bulk of 'challenges' in levels to be of the former category, since they will always remain 'challenging'. Simply copying a common 'puzzle' from another level is no good, because most players will have come across it before, and coming up with a new and unique puzzle requires, well, imagination. [...] One of the other points you seem to have picked up on with your "skinny platforms with death pits" example, is not so much about being too easy, but lacking variety, something which DarkDedede also touched upon. There's this ill-conceived notion amongst many creators that it's more important that a level be long, than varied, and the easiest way to achieve this is to just copy and paste the same 'challenge' again and again. The other implication of this, which I had failed to realize at the time, is that it's actually a necessity to have challenging platforming sections in a level if you want that level to have a decent amount of replay value, since 'puzzles' become somewhat trivial once solved for the first time. You must have gone straight for the paint, knowing that it was already "open," right? Yes. I wondered if it might be something like a failed pre-condition, but it completely slipped my mind to mention it. I think you're good then, since that was the only time it failed.

2010-04-05 05:14:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Thanks for the links, Aya. I have to admit, though, that the x2 puzzle in Interstellar Infiltration was not conceived by me. It was mentioned in a thread for Jackofcourse's IA2, but he never used it. I snatched it up, but have since forgotten who came up with the idea. On that note, I have tried to think of other puzzles in that vein. I have one worked out in a workshop level, but people generally dislike the puzzles where you have to hang/swing from grabby material. I may come back to it yet, but I'd have to see how well it can fit into the theme of the level. Actually, rtm popped into my level and gave me a puzzle idea that intend to use which requires a little sideways thinking. That's actually the next island on the list to be designed. OOOOOH! I just had another idea that can be used to prepare the player for such a puzzle! Wow. I'm happy now. You'll have to see it when I get it worked out and tell me if it's too convoluted. *Sketches idea/note to myself* --- Now, the original solution to that now-permanent-little-puzzle mentioned above was for the person on top to allow the person on the bottom to grab the orange pad underneath. Then, the person on the top holds down the orange switch so that the platform swings all the way to the right. He or she then lets go and walks through the little opening on the left, right up to the edge. As the platform swings around underneath, the person on the bottom can drop off onto it and ride it to the left side. It works very well when everyone is on the same page, but sadly none of my testers could figure it out. Wow, I'm happy with that little puzzle idea I just came up with. Coupled with rtm's idea, I just need a concluding puzzle and the level is all but finished. Wonderful!

2010-04-05 13:37:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Thanks for the links, Aya. Sadly, these days, there's so much drivel on LBW, it's a challenge in itself just finding a thread that's actually worth reading. I snatched it up, but have since forgotten who came up with the idea. Tsk. Idea thief. I also find playing through a few existing 2x levels can be inspirational in devising more unusual 2x puzzles, although sadly the bulk of them are very similar. Actually, rtm popped into my level and gave me a puzzle idea that intend to use which requires a little sideways thinking. That's actually the next island on the list to be designed. [...] You'll have to see it when I get it worked out and tell me if it's too convoluted. Cool. I might have one or two ideas myself, although the flipper one I mentioned is probably way too hard - I don't think anyone figured it out. The other one I put a bit of thought into, in a similar vein (i.e. one that requires unusual 2x interaction) is if there was a puzzle in which the only way to pass it was by having one sackperson slap the other. I never did manage to come up with a situation in which this would work, but thought it would be awesome if possible. Now, the original solution to that now-permanent-little-puzzle mentioned above was... Of course. That would be even easier from a timing POV. I suppose allowing my solution to be workable would perhaps make it slightly easier, and thus possible to include? It works very well when everyone is on the same page, but sadly none of my testers could figure it out. How about this (and this may be non-trivial to do): how easy would it be to have a difficulty selector at the beginning of the level, and depending on what they choose, you either make the door a p-switch or not? You could potentially use the same mechanism to make some of the other puzzles a little easier or harder, or possibly bypass them altogether, say, by having one of two different islands move into place depending on which option they choose. Given the inherant modularity of the islands design, this might be quite easy to pull off. Plus with two different game experiences, there's instant replay value in choosing the other option the next time around.

2010-04-05 15:23:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Thanks for the links, Aya. I have to admit, though, that the x2 puzzle in Interstellar Infiltration was not conceived by me. It was mentioned in a thread for Jackofcourse's IA2, but he never used it. I snatched it up, but have since forgotten who came up with the idea. tommy012345

2010-04-05 15:29:00 Author: KQuinn94Z Posts: 1758

---

Difficulty selector, eh? I'm not sure I want to retrofit all completed puzzles with harder/simpler variations at this point, but I may want to do something like that in the future. This level is more about getting comfortable designing two player obstacles (it's been a while since creating puzzle-type stuffs). Perhaps I may even dabble with making a level that serves as both a single player adventure OR a cooperative puzzler, which you choose from at the beginning. It would be a pain to pull off, but not impossible. In fact, I'm thinking that many of the current puzzles can flipped into single player puzzles by making slight changes. Hm... food for thought... I still have to make a sequel to Interstellar Infiltration.

2010-04-05 16:12:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

I'm not sure I want to retrofit all completed puzzles with harder/simpler variations at this point, but I may want to do something like that in the future. Okay, but another option which may be trivial to implement would be as follows:- Imagine you have 3 islands: A, B, and C, which you progress through in alphabetical order, and island B contains a very difficult puzzle. What you'd do is only have islands A and C in the level at the beginning. If the player chooses the hard mode, then you emit island B into position between islands A and C, but if they choose the easy mode, then you emit a different island of a similar size between islands A and C, which is just a simple platform with a few point bubbles on it.

2010-04-05 16:46:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Well, I took another play through, and I found some stuff. 1. Visible Darkmatter, on Island 7, and a two others that I'm not sure of. 2.Visible Sensor Switch and Emitter near the tree and rock puzzle (You're probably already aware of this). 3. To much awesomeness! By the way, are you certain you want that level name, because I have a few ideas.

2010-04-05 22:25:00 Author: X-FROGBOY-X Posts: 1800

---

By the way, are you certain you want that level name, because I have a few ideas. Throw em out there! I am quite fond of the name (and it tricks my girlfriend into playing it with me), but I don't see any reason to refuse to consider other names.

2010-04-05 23:25:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Stratospheric Synergy, which means teamwork in the sky. Here's a little chart thing to show some fancy words. Teamwork esprit de corps union collusion assistance Sky azure zephyr ozone stratosphere I'm terrible at punny titles, but here goes, A Joint Effort in the Jetstream (This could go in the description ) One more thing, at the beginning of the level, the first time you go to a new island, if you fall to the far left, you won't be killed by gas, you just fall to the floor. (Am I being specific enough?)

2010-04-08 02:16:00 Author: X-FROGBOY-X Posts: 1800

---

One more thing, at the beginning of the level, the first time you go to a new island, if you fall to the far left, you won't be killed by gas, you just fall to the floor. (Am I being specific enough?) Yeah, I think I get it. I was in this level for the first time in a couple days and managed to add absolutely nothing. I'm exhausted. Hopefully I get some of it done tomorrow.

2010-04-08 03:05:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Wait, another level?

2010-04-08 03:47:00 Author: FreeFlyzz Posts: 265

---

Stratospheric Synergy sounds very much like something I'd come up with for one of my levels I like! Comph, slow the fook down if you aren't feeling it! I've done the same and it's no fun if you just carry on when you don't even want to. You're better taking your time and actually enjoying the creating process. Relax...we can wait. I've heard there's a few 2 player levels out there that are pretty decent if people really need something to play, anyway

2010-04-08 04:05:00 Author: jackofcourse Posts: 1494

---

Wait, another level? Haha, yeah... It's nearly finished, too! @Jack - No, I'm not burned out or anything, I just have been busy. Then, when I got in there, I had some people come in and visit, and we just ended up playing the level instead...

2010-04-08 04:22:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Haha, yeah... It's nearly finished, too! @Jack - No, I'm not burned out or anything, I just have been busy. Then, when I got in there, I had some people come in and visit, and we just ended up playing the level instead... Ohhh haha. Well in that case...ignore me and continue!

2010-04-08 04:26:00 Author: jackofcourse Posts: 1494

---

I've heard there's a few 2 player levels out there that are pretty decent if people really need something to play, anyway Hey, comphy. Why not call your level "Industrial Assistance 3" - that might draw some attention.

2010-04-08 04:30:00 Author: Aya042 Posts: 2870

---

Hey, comphy. Why not call your level "Industrial Assistance 3" - that might draw some attention. Or "The Pretty Doctor: Tribal Assistance Timberland 4"?

2010-04-08 04:37:00 Author: thekevinexpress Posts: 256

---

Zephyr Assistance 2: Azure Timberlands

2010-04-08 04:40:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Haha! Yes! Anyway you get approval from me... This sounds like a briliant idea and I definitely cannot wait to see the finished product!

2010-04-09 15:02:00 Author: piggabling Posts: 2979

---

Alright, progress is slowing down. Real life tends to get in the way right when you are about finished. I have added another island whose puzzle is quite convoluted, so I'll need some further testing of that. I think the version I have up online is broken, so don't bother quite yet. I also have worked out a light, simple story that could make for a fun final puzzle. Sadly, I'm having trouble with the second-to-last island. I was trying to think of something exciting to make it more epic, but I trashed the first design and am not happy with the second design. So... I will eventually get onto a third design (in hopes of not making it to the fourth). The my Senior year in college is wrapping up, so I won't have much time to work on this over the next few weeks. Expect this to be done in maybe 3-4 weeks.

2010-04-10 17:11:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

A good way to make "co-op platforming" is to put a door at the end of your jumps or whatever, with the next checkpoint on the other side. Connect two buttons to the door with an AND gate, and thus both players have to make the jumps or whatever to advance. It's a nice break from puzzlespuzzlespuzzles. http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/272671-Blackfalcon/671/5/animal0064hb2_display.gif

2010-04-11 17:06:00 Author: Blackfalcon Posts: 409

---

You did say it would have more platforming than other 2x levels didn't you? It may be a little late to suggest this, but I'd like to see some dynamic, multiplayer platforming sections. Other than, like you said, switch-pulling-puzzle-pieces. I'd enjoy seeing pieces that use more physics than pistons and winches. Using the sackboy's weight and abilities to manipulate the evniornment. Something as simple as one player raising one end of a teeter-tottor type thing enabling the other player to reach a higher height. I know that's not the best way to put in such a type of gameplay, but do you see what I'm getting at?

2010-04-11 19:06:00 Author: piggabling Posts: 2979

---

I played it again, the new stuff you added is great!

2010-04-13 19:07:00 Author: X-FROGBOY-X Posts: 1800

---

As you said you were considdering enemies, how about one you both have to get to a side and pull it apart. Oh and I have some landmine-ish logic, if player 1 stands on it, it is set. You step of ... BOOM. But! Player 2 can press a button to deactivate the mine, enableing(?) P. 1 to step of. So.... message me if you want it.... wich isn't very likely to happen. Cya

2010-04-13 19:39:00 Author: Okisaan Posts: 165

---

Hey folks. It's been a while, but I have a new version up on the servers. I have decided to go with a chase at the end, and I'm quite happy with how it has turned out. That said, the level does not fully work as it is supposed to quite yet. You should be able to play through all of the puzzles, but halfway through there will be a cannon that shoots you into some gas. That's just temporary, as I am still testing and fine tuning the chase (which, incidentally, is a thunderstorm). It really ramps in difficulty near the end, so I would not advise it for those of you who struggle with figuring out puzzles. The chase is a bit wonky yet, and if you die it will likely break. That said, it's pretty easy to not die. Just be patient and work together. Have any questions, let me know. Edit: Oh, side note. The darkness will not be like this throughout. It will get progressively darker as the level goes on. It's only that dark because of the chase at the end.

2010-04-17 23:19:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

Cool! I might check it out later. It sounds like it's really shaping up.

2010-04-18 02:03:00 Author: piggabling Posts: 2979

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.