doubleweek proposal !!!

claxo on 2008/09/12 16:42 of mutant lightning dog

What if:
. at deadline for pyweek each entry can opt between 'pyweek candidate' and 'lateweek' candidate

. Judging for pyweek goes as normal, but voting is limited to 'pyweek candidates' (pyweek award)

. 2nd deadline one week later than 1st deadline, voting over 'lateweek candidates' (lateweek award)

. optionally 'pyweek candidates' are allowed to entry for the a 'doubleweek award' , for upgraded games that want to present


The questions are:
. Can Richard take the extra work ?
. Is there enough people interested ?

For this to happen, I think an early as possible anounce is needed, so I ask people interested to do a +1 vote in the thread, and I suggest that details can be worked after the 1st deadline.

@Richard: first, sorry for the too sudden proposal. second: If you cant, you cant, I understand you dont have any obligation. third: if not happens now, probably it will not happen forever ( piggy awards ?).

respectfully,
claxo

(log in to comment)

Comments

j-1 on 2008/09/12 18:46:

This was proposed after the end of Pyweek 6, and was called the Pyggy awards. Instead of an extra week, you would get one month to improve your game or any game from earlier pyweeks. As far as I know, this idea never got implemented (though they had a homepage).

I think the Pyggy way of separating the two challenges, instead of just prolonging Pyweek, is better, since everyone work on the same terms (the first groups' games wouldn't get played as much as the second, since the competition is still going). Besides, I think most people would just go with the two-week version.

Tee on 2008/09/12 19:11:

I'm not sure I understand what the goal is with this lateweek/doubleweek idea. In my opinion, I like Pyweek being only one week. My main reason for that is that I think one week is a good length of time to make one game, and I always postpone life stuff for Pyweek, and I just can't handle well postponing two weeks of life stuff. Sure, I can choose my game being one week or two weeks, but if I see that people are doing two weeks, I'll either feel bad for not choosing two weeks or be tempted to do it and later feel the consequences of postponing too many things. Also, I feel people work better and faster under tight time constraints than relaxed time constraints.

Well, that's just my opinion.

sjbrown on 2008/09/12 19:29:

Seems more complicated - for what value? ie, what would this propose to achieve?

claxo on 2008/09/12 19:57:

What the value ? I see:

. You can target the timespan that better suit your projects and time availability.

. You dont necesary need to cut so much from a project, thus hopefully bringing better games and more interesting code ( code that you may actually want to revisit )

. If you want, you get presure to follow up the game.

. The posibility of extra time can allow, for people that want it, to atack more ambitious projects

saluk on 2008/09/12 20:01:

Yeah I'm not much for a doubleweek, or longer. I just can't focus enough for a longer competition, I get even more distracted and do less work than on the weeklong or shorter. I have other real projects that I can work on (or even work on post compo releases), I don't really see the whole "competition!" helping more than just my own drive to finish/work on games. Whereas the short week deadline really does help a lot. But on the same note, the week drains me and I don't feel like doing much after its over either. Pyggy isn't the last time it's been mentioned, there have been proposals for similar things before that. I just don't think the magic of pyweek can really be captured elsewhere. I like the pyggy idea better than a doubleweek though.

Tee on 2008/09/12 20:12:

Maybe it would be better to create a new two weeks competition instead of modifying Pyweek. It just wouldn't be good for me for the reasons I've previously said, sorry, but that's just me. I think Pyweek is meant to have "created in one week" kind of games, just like, for example, LD48 is meant to have "created in two days" kind of games. It would be great to see more ambitious projects, but I just don't feel Pyweek is the place for that. There are longer game competitions out there (non-"Python exclusive", but nothing stops you from making a game in Python).

sjbrown on 2008/09/12 23:57:

I think it might be fun to do a separate competition called "PyPolish" or something, where you take any of the opensource Pyweek projects, and polish them up in a week. Extra points for getting it included in an OS distribution.

dmoisset on 2008/09/13 04:14:

@sjbrown: Pypolish (or piggy) has been suggested before. I made a proposal last pyweek, and it looked like somebody would be organizing that, but nothing happened. If nobody takes the flag this year, I think I could help organize that for this summer (southern hemisphere summer :) ).

richard on 2008/09/13 11:42:

There was even a set of rules written up, but no-one really pushed the idea and I didn't have time to do it. I'm usually kinda burnt out after a PyWeek...

gcewing on 2008/09/13 12:31:

I'd still like to get the Pyggy idea going. I didn't get around to it last time because I was too busy finishing off Assembly Line. My entry this time looks as if it will be much more finished at the deadline, so maybe I won't be tempted to spend another 3 months on it and I'll find time to get a Pyggy website put together...

richard on 2008/09/14 02:41:

That would be excellent, Greg. Again you're welcome to set it up as part of the pyweek site, but I just can't guarantee my help in doing so. It's not a complex site :)

gcewing on 2008/09/14 11:17:

Okay, I'll talk to you about it more after I've had a couple of weeks of sleep. :-)

RB[0] on 2008/09/14 20:53:

Assuming I can find the time I will help too greg - I love the idea :D

dmoisset on 2008/09/14 22:19:

@gcewing: let me know if you need help... my email is my pyweek username at except dot com dot ar.