bjorn on 2008/04/11 00:14:

I think it's a great idea. I especially like the part about not having to base it on your own entry (I was going to suggest it if you hadn't already put it in there).

One thing I don't agree with however is this bit:

Code libraries and assets may be used provided they were publically released prior to the previous PyWeek.

What is your reasoning here? If someone wants to port to a newer library I feel that should be allowed. The point of the "one month before" rule for pyweek is so everyone has a level playing field for creating a game in a week. I don't see a similar impetus for imposing such a restriction on a 3 month dev cycle.

RB[0] on 2008/04/11 00:34:

gcewing - we have been discussing this quite a bit on irc, and it is indeed a good idea. One idea was that we would be able to work on our games in the month or (insert time-frame here) following pyweek, then have a week-long sprint again at the end - to regather attention.

The main problems/questions I see with your ideas are:
1: can we work on our games in the interim - if not - I think that will turn off some people.
2: if we can't work on entries prior to this new comp, then we will spend most of the comp acquainting ourselves with the code - and that will lose more productivity.
3: I second bjorn's suggestion that you allow new code-bases.
4: It seems that your idea is geared less towards polishing up the games - in which case people would need more time to dissect the code they are planning on polishing - and more towards having another pyweek with the theme of working from an existing game...
5: finally, I think that the 3-month thing would be very difficult, whether we allowed people to work on the games or not in the interim - either they will lose focus or finish up there changes too soon, or they will be forced to spend more time during the compo to evaluate and plan dev action for their entry, whether it was originally theirs or not...

Sorry if that sounds harsh, I'm typing kinda quick here and just wanted to let you know ;)
Good luck either way :)

Archwyrm on 2008/04/11 05:30:

Sounds interesting! As far as judging goes, I think there should also be a "Most Improved" category. Although going back and reviewing the previous game as well as the new one could be quite painful (given as many entries as PyWeek).

gcewing on 2008/04/11 08:19:

Responses to some points people have made:

Code libraries

My reasoning is much the same as for PyWeek -- to provide a level playing field. We'll be judging people by what they come up with in 3 months, so it seems reasonable to give them all equal resources at the outset. But maybe it's not that important -- I'd be happy to remove all restrictions on library use if that's what most people want.

Note that there would be nothing stopping you from making improvements to a library during the 3 months and using those. Also I'm timing it from the beginning of PyWeek, not a month before. So there would effectively be no restriction on using a personal library as long as you release whatever version exists when PyWeek starts (or whenever I decide to start the 3 month clock).

Time allowed to work on games

You are absolutely allowed to work on the game during the 3 month period. That's the whole point -- to give you a reasonable amount of time to produce a polished game without a lot of pressure.

Hosting on pyweek.org

Seeing as the web site would need much of the same functionality as the pyweek one, this could make a lot of sense. Would need to look more closely at the technical issues involved.

RB[0] wrote:

It seems that your idea is geared less towards polishing up the games

Well, it's meant to be about polishing the games. It's really intended for people to work on finishing their own games, in which case time to get up to speed on the code isn't an issue. The only reason for allowing other people's games to be worked on is that I can't think of much reason to disallow it, and there would be no way of enforcing it anyway. Also, if the original author doesn't want to continue with a game, but someone else does, that's one more chance to bring another good game into the world.

Loss of Focus

Something that needs to be decided is whether to allow games to be uploaded throughout the 3 month period, or only during some window at the end. Having an upload window would increase the sense of occasion and provide more of a focus for people to come together. On the other hand, getting people to try out and comment on the game during development is vital to getting a polished result, as well as rewarding in itself.

So I'm not sure how to proceed there. Maybe have a scheme where people can sign up as beta testers for particular games and get preview access to them? But then what's to stop everyone from being beta testers for every game?

Most Improved category?

Not sure about that one. My idea was that a Pyggy would be something you could proudly use when promoting your game -- "Most Innovative Game in the July 2008 Pyggy Awards" sort of thing. "Most Improved" doesn't work so well that way, since it's not a property of the game itself, but more of a delta from some other game.

A mailing list

Would definitely be helpful! I don't have the resources to run a mailing list server myself right now -- anyone want to volunteer? Failing that, I could set up a Google Group.

Martin on 2008/04/11 09:26:

Not in your set of rules, but there has been some discussion of such on IRC, etc. Personally, I would have no problem being disqualified, for the reasons given in my previous post.

One thing that worries me is that people will restrict themselves unduly in order to qualify for the competition. If I can make a better game by using newer libraries, or unreleased code I have lying around, or assets which aren't quite public, I'm going to do that. The nice thing about PyWeek being over is being freed from the limitations it imposes on development. If the point of the Pyggys is to encourage turning PyWeek entries into (even more) polished high quality games, then these restrictions need to vanish. I worry that the rules as you've suggested them place too much emphasis on a "level playing field", and not enough on encouraging people to do what's best for their game.

Chard on 2008/04/11 10:49:

Martin makes a very good point. People should do whatever they can to improve their game, if that involves using the latest release of a library or a different library altogether that wouldn't have been allowed during PyWeek because you can improve the game by doing so then it should be permitted. Possibly you want to ensure that entries can be distributed freely but I can't see a need for much else.

Martin on 2008/04/11 12:32:

I certainly don't have a problem with people doing open development. I won't be one of them, but that's our decision as a team, and not something I feel should be enshrined in the rules. If a team is comfortable with their work-in-progress being publicly viewable, I think they should be free to make it so.

bjorn on 2008/04/11 17:24:

@RB[0] - if it's a one month sprint, it better be the one month following pyweek because people always do a bit of polishing their game even right after they upload their final and I feel that excluding these people will only hurt. But since many of us are playing the games for half the month, and may be burnt out from the preceding week of coding, that effectively cuts it down to two weeks or so! No I think the full 3 months is necessary. No one is forced to work on it the whole time, but it allows people to find where the work fits into their schedule, and a nice (relatively) leisurely schedule will allow people to add the features they want and still have time to do testing and bug squashing, tweaking, and polishing.

gcewing on 2008/04/12 06:04:

The consensus so far seems to be that 3 months is okay, so I'll leave it at that for now.

A couple of details to resolve:

When exactly should the 3 months be measured from? The end of the PyWeek submission period, or the end of the judging period?

How long should the Pyggy judging period be? Two weeks? More? Less? Included in or following the 3 months?

gcewing on 2008/04/12 23:40:

My intention was always to allow people to continue working on their game immediately. The only issue is how the time period from PyWeek to the start of Pyggy judging should be measured.

If it's 3 months from the end of PyWeek judging, and there is 2 weeks of Pyggy judging, then the whole process is going to be 1 week of PyWeek development + 2 weeks judging + 3 months + another 2 weeks judging, which is over 4 months altogether -- that's probably a bit much out of a 6 month period.

So how about starting Pyggy judging 3 months after the *start* of PyWeek judging? That gives people 3 solid months of development time, and nearly another 3 months to recover before the next PyWeek (assuming judging is less stressful than coding!).

richard on 2008/04/23 02:47:

OK, so given this is a Good Idea what do we need to do to move it forward?

richard on 2008/04/23 03:33:

I've been discussing it with Greg and having it be part of pyweek.org is fine by me. I've still got some work to do setting up the Google Code project, but planning for the changes to the pyweek.org site can definitely go ahead. Let me know your google login and I can add you to the project.

Bob the Hamster on 2008/04/23 14:53:

How about if "Most Improved" is not something that judges vote on directly, but it can still be awarded based on the difference between pyweek and pyggy scores for the same game

Tigga on 2008/04/23 22:32:

My only suggestion would be allowing games from previous competitions, maybe just for the first one. I'd quite like an exuse to beef up my last two games, for example, while I really don't see the one I made for this PyWeek going anywhere.

RB[0] on 2008/04/24 00:27:

Yeah, you can expand any previous pyweek release games, not any newer releases after them :)
Cool - and good luck :)

RB[0] on 2008/04/29 15:58:

I'd like to know too.
the irc room is deader-than-dead, and once again I'm working on other projects again more than our entry.

If this is actually running - and people are actually competing - that would be a good incentive for me ;)
Also, use the diaries and irc more, please, so we know you are there :)

RB[0] on 2008/04/29 23:40:

Yeah - this would be a problem.
I think there have to be one of two rules.
a: you can only use games from this last competition, or
b: you can use any game and continue it, even if it has been worked on outside of pyweek already...

gcewing on 2008/05/06 11:35:

I wouldn't object to there being some kind of "open division" where a wider variety of games is accepted, e.g. games from any previous PyWeek rather than the immediately preceding one.