WFC: should the WFC concept change?

Warrior of the Light

24th November 2006 21:45 UTC

WFC: should the WFC concept change?
(continuation of what's discussed here)

The current concept:

Every artist that chooses to participate must aim to create two originals and two remixes. The originals have to be created in such way that someone's able to remix it.

After the first deadline (usually about a month), every artist receives the presets of two other artists for remixing.
(The artist receives four presets, but since some presets are very hard to remix, only two remixes have to be returned, preferably one from each artist, also because the pack might grow too large otherwise)

If you know in advance that you can't participate in one of the two parts, then you shouldn't participate.
This is because the presets will be spread in a balanced order. If people 'simply' would choose not to remix, someone might end up getting no remixes at all.
If someone just wants to remix, then there is no way to decide which originals that person would have to get without breaking the balance of the presets.

---

Now I get a lot of requests (Qforce and Raz in WFC3 and JFASI and ASD5A in WFC5 so far) of people that just want to remix. I had to turn them down because I believe that everybody deserves an equal chance.

Should there be changes made in the concept to make it possible in the future to give people an oppurtunity to participate in just one part?

- right now all I can think of is teams - if one artist can make an original but can't remix he could join forces with someone who just wants to remix.

If you want something to change, please write out your entire idea: meaning not posting things such as 'something should be done to prevent...' but posting 'we should add idea X to the concept so that action Y can happen. The downside is...' instead.

Mr_Nudge

25th November 2006 03:13 UTC

the system works. let it be.

WildJack77

25th November 2006 08:17 UTC

I'm agree with mr.nudge

PAK-9

25th November 2006 13:48 UTC

Re: WFC: should the WFC concept change?
I dont think it needs to be changed, it works well as it is. As you pointed out, it is fairest this way.

The main problem I see with allowing people to remix without submitting originals is that remixing is a lot easier than creating from scratch, so you are basically having someone else do all the hard work for you. We all have to pitch in with originals, although I dont necessarily see why having 2 is so important, I'd rather see one really good preset than 2 average ones. If that means its less for the remixer to work with then so be it (as I keep saying, remixing is easier anyway).

by the way I dont remember this rule ever being mentioned before

Originally posted by Warrior of the Light
The originals have to be created in such way that someone's able to remix it.

:p

jheriko

27th November 2006 10:15 UTC

I agree about remixing that its quite a lot easier... but it depends on the remix to be honest. Consider Jet Wash, probably only marginally easier to create than Starfighter Redux... if it was easier at all.

The current format works, the only thing I dislike are the deadlines. You would get better packs with longer deadlines, although they would be released less frequently the quality would improve... imo anyway

Warrior of the Light

27th November 2006 10:56 UTC

I couldn't possibly say that remixes are easier than originals.
It depends on the ideas I have

About the deadlines.. Are they really too short or is it just that everybody waits until a week before the deadline?
Do you guys really *need* more than a month to create one or two presets?

jheriko

27th November 2006 12:19 UTC

Its not about needing all of that time to work on a preset, its about having that much time available so that it is easier to find the time.

Except for the first pack, each time I have submitted a preset it has been a preset that I would have made anyway. i.e. I happened to be in the mood for some AVS and it conveniently coincided with the WFC pack. A longer deadline would make it more likely that I submit something, rather than giving me time i *need* to make a preset.

Something I keep thinking about the remixes too... is that there are always more remixes than originals in the pack, or at least way too many remixes, which is crap imo. I have a few reasons for thinking this:

1.) The best remixes are usually based on a preset that is already quite good. Some presets are either crap already, or are hard to remix. The result is that people whip out a remix which is poor or mediocre, simply to meet the requirements for the pack.

2.) Packs with more remixes than originals seem fundamentally wrong to me. Part of the idea of an AVS pack is to release original content, by padding it out with slightly different versions of the same presets the pack gets watered down in that respect.

3.) A lot of the specialness of a remix in a normal AVS pack is that someone selected the preset to remix (presumably because it is good already) then did things they wanted to do to it. This is a pretty good formula for a good preset. In a WFC pack the process is totally different: you get handed a preset and told to remix it... there is no reason for this process to produce an attractive preset, so to expect one is... hopeful at best imo.

PAK-9

27th November 2006 13:35 UTC

Originally posted by jheriko
I agree about remixing that its quite a lot easier... but it depends on the remix to be honest. Consider Jet Wash, probably only marginally easier to create than Starfighter Redux... if it was easier at all.

I think you are citing an exceptional preset, most presets are not tech demos, and Jet Wash was not a remix in the traditional sense since it doesnt contain any components of the original (it was actually mis-titled in the pack iirc).

However one of the reasons I (personally) find remixing easier than originals is that you are give a huge dollop of inspiration/core preset idea for free. So even if you end up rewriting the preset from scratch (which most of you know I usually do) you have still had a lot of help in the development from the original. Judging it on that criteria, even Jet Wash was made easier to some extend by having an idea to work from.

Originally posted by jheriko
3.) A lot of the specialness of a remix in a normal AVS pack is that someone selected the preset to remix (presumably because it is good already) then did things they wanted to do to it. This is a pretty good formula for a good preset. In a WFC pack the process is totally different: you get handed a preset and told to remix it... there is no reason for this process to produce an attractive preset, so to expect one is... hopeful at best imo.

This is a very valid point, without repeating what you have said too much, people choose presets to remix because they have a specific vision of how to improve it or produce something a 'level beyond' the original, the WFC method removes this. Also, the quality of a remix is usually pretty consistant with the quality of the original, the WFC's typically have at least a few fairly crappy originals with similarily crappy remixes.

On the other hand, if you were to allow everyone to remix what they wanted it would both remove the enjoyment of the final release (since everyone would have seen most of the presets) and probably lead to most people remxing the same presets. Given the choice I favour the current method.

jheriko

27th November 2006 16:29 UTC

Originally posted by PAK-9
On the other hand, if you were to allow everyone to remix what they wanted it would both remove the enjoyment of the final release (since everyone would have seen most of the presets) ...

That is a good point. I never really think about the "suspense" behind a release since it doesn't bother me personally all that much... keeping presets secret is nice, but I don't sit here biting my nails waiting for them, nor do I feel particularly cheated if I see a preset before its "proper release".

An "easy fix" might to make the remixing optional. If you don't have to produce any remixes then its not as likely that you are going to submit some substandard preset. In my own case I probably wouldn't submit a remix unless I was happy with it, unlike the last pack where I essentially botched together a remix (it should be obvious which one) and only produced one remix that I was happy with myself.

Anyway, none of it is a big deal. Except for the Visbot releases the WFC packs are the only decent collaboration packs out there these days.

Warrior of the Light

27th November 2006 22:45 UTC

Originally posted by jheriko
Except for the Visbot releases the WFC packs are the only decent collaboration packs out there these days.

That brings us at another topic. This may be true, but it bothers me in a way too:

When WFC1 started, the idea was to show who the people in this forum were; everybody from the newest newb up to the most experienced regular.

WFC2 then had some ground breaking new concepts, only a few noobs and was an immediate succes.
When WFC3 was released, people were expecting even better presets from even better known artists. A lot of the regulars here didn't participate and their places were taken by 'new' people. Most of the people that reviewed WFC3 compared it to WFC2 and were disappointed, even though most of the artists that participated in WFC3 had created better presets than they had ever done before.
I haven't heard from Kookee ever since WFC2 and I fear the bad criticism of his presets in WFC2 may have had a part in that.
I can't speak for WFC4 because I didn't participate.

WFC was never about being a collections of the absolute best presets at all, rather the opposite. But the succes brought it there today. Question is now, do we want to continue the line of popular packs or do we want to give newbs an equal chance too and really show what this forum is about?

---
Back to topic:

There are 11 artists with 18 originals (+ 1 intro). This will result, no matter how, in an enourmous collection of presets, especially when the remixes are done.. Three more people have asked if they could just want remix. (JFASI, ASD5A and Mysterious W this far)

On the one hand open and optional remixing is tempting, but I fear that there would be like 7 remixes of the best preset alone and that the presets from the newbs would be entirely neglected - this alone was the reason behind sharing the presets like we do now. It's very easy with like 6 years of experience to get respect if that's what you're after from the guys you know but you gain more respect IMO if you're able to fine-tune a mediocre newb's preset into something outstanding.

PAK-9

28th November 2006 09:58 UTC

Originally posted by jheriko
An "easy fix" might to make the remixing optional. If you don't have to produce any remixes then its not as likely that you are going to submit some substandard preset.

No one forces you to submit remixes, if you don't provide them your originals are still included and you arent penalised in any way. So is remixing not optional? However even with optional remixing there is still the problem that the originals that were sent to you are now not going to be remixed by anyone, despite how good and awesome-remix-makable they might be.

Originally posted by jheriko
Question is now, do we want to continue the line of popular packs or do we want to give newbs an equal chance too and really show what this forum is about?

I think it is good to have a mix of noob and veteran presets, but I think you have to avoid the super-noobs. The example you cited of Kookee was a good one, not because he was scared off by critisism, but because he was basically just some guy who came to the avs forums when we happened to be making one of the compilations. As a result he was included in the pack despite not really being a member of the community. The preset he created certainly does not reflect the winamp forums avs community, and I personally would not have put it in.

I am personally in favour of vetting entries or entrants into the pack, something as simple as not allowing Junior Members to participate. You can say this is anti-noob but in reality it just ensures that people have been active in the community for at least a short amount of time, the pack is supposed to be for the winamp forums contributors, participation should not be defaulted. (I am personally in favour of selectively including originals and remixes based on quality, but thats a bit more controversial)

jheriko

28th November 2006 10:17 UTC

Quality control is important. For even the noobiest noob there is no excuse for submitting some blitter feedback and a couple of moving particles, etc... so I think it would be safe to exclude the noobiest presets without excluding anyone who is already participating.

RGB moving particles and single trivial superscopes on black backgrounds should be an automatic kickban or something :P

ASD5A

28th November 2006 18:29 UTC

maybe we should have expirienced artists to support the newbies in order to keep the overall quality high and gain fresh blood. that way even lazy retards like me could participate (as helpers) without having a enormous deadline which may annoy some people.

Tuggummi

30th November 2006 02:31 UTC

Voted No.
Im off.

jheriko

30th November 2006 13:50 UTC

Originally posted by ASD5A
maybe we should have expirienced artists to support the newbies in order to keep the overall quality high and gain fresh blood. that way even lazy retards like me could participate (as helpers) without having a enormous deadline which may annoy some people.

I agree, I enjoy helping some noob to do something a lot more than doing it myself. I've probably written more AVS code in the last year from helping people than from making AVS presets.

Yathosho

30th November 2006 17:55 UTC

i always found the order of presets most boring

Grandchild

2nd December 2006 06:19 UTC

in which way?
how they're arranged one by one or originals-then-remixes order?

i like the concept very much so far, and wouldn't mind helping out either.
but how should that work? maybe every helper does one preset on his own and a 'pre-remix' of a noob's preset with the aim of perfecting, not actually remixing as in 'bringing in new ideas'.
[doesn't sound too practical to me, actually]

gc

Yathosho

2nd December 2006 10:00 UTC

being ordered by artist/preset makes it kinda boring to watch, a lose order would relax the whole thing. i always decide the order on how well presets blend into each other.

jheriko

2nd December 2006 14:32 UTC

Originally posted by Grandchild

i like the concept very much so far, and wouldn't mind helping out either.
but how should that work? maybe every helper does one preset on his own and a 'pre-remix' of a noob's preset with the aim of perfecting, not actually remixing as in 'bringing in new ideas'.

How about the noob sending the helper his preset by e-mail/IRC and the helper sends back some help? Seems simple enough to me, nothing hard or complicated required.

ASD5A

2nd December 2006 14:59 UTC

Originally posted by jheriko
How about the noob sending the helper his preset by e-mail/IRC and the helper sends back some help? Seems simple enough to me, nothing hard or complicated required.

seconded.

Grandchild

3rd December 2006 10:19 UTC

yes, ok that'd be simple, but i was thinking about the noob who doesn't want any help and thinks his stuff is the l33tness. because i think the reason to do it in the first place was increasing the quality and avoid another 'stereo mountains'.
then the one who's in conrol has to make a decision what to do with the rgb-MP-rotoblitter in a fortcoming WFC compilation.