paraphrand

Yeah, people flipped out seemingly claiming he was killing the intuitive. And in the end the over reaction and excess of attention directed towards him brought more attention to the whole topic and the petition.

It’s like manufactured drama for a good cause. I’m not sure how I feel about that. 😅

Easy on the trigger man.

Do you think there’s any chance that Musk can break whatever is formally boxing out other parties? It seems like just by being who he is right now in history, he could break things.

We need to hope he breaks the current norm in a way that doesn’t put him in power, and opens things up for proper multi-party elections in the future. That’s a lot to hope for though, I guess.

When I think about this, I can imagine Musk fans telling tales of his 4D chess moves and how his plan all along has been to overhaul and improve elections. Or some other bullshit.

It reminds me of a way to frame being a boring person in a conversation.

Boring people list what happened, and enumerate quantitative variables about something they experienced.

Interesting people share their subjective experience of something.

I think it mostly revolves around how you get 100 players together for a good game. The match making part. I’m skeptical of the quality of match making, but that’s not a showstopper for people committed to playing. But if we set aside the need for someone to maintain hosting, then it becomes peer to peer or a lan party, or a combination of the two.

I remember what it was like rounding up and wrangling 80 people to raid in WoW back in the day.

And none of this is a showstopper I don’t see why we can’t talk about that. It’s not like discussing the difficult edge cases or the feasibility of the details could harm things.

My initial question in this thread framed changing the game design, not networking stack. So it was about making it all local/same screen only. An absurd example on purpose.

Whoa, calm down everyone. 😅

Man. Y’all really think I’m talking about networking design?

I thought we were talking about gameplay design. That’s why I picked 100 player battle royal.

“Change the game design” implies that, to me. I didn’t pick a single player experience with always online requirements. Or a 4 player game with online matchmaking and no direct connect options.

There’s such a strong, and obsessive need among a bunch of people on this topic to explain and explain, and not parse the precise thing being asked.

There’s also a lot of people who conflate having the opinion that the effort will fail due to its approach and the person/people behind it with not wanting it to succeed.

What I’m doing is poking at how people are behaving and how they talk about this initiative. And how the messaging is confusing and all over the place. It takes 5 people racing to explain it to me when I understand perfectly, and lay out a specific case. Yet no one replies to explain how my example would work.

I’m not the only one who sees this initiative as misguided, and mis framed.

Sorry for coming off like a troll, usually my outlier questions get responses instead of people acting like they are here.

I’ve really dug a bit too deep on this one, and I’ll try to stop replying now.

You guys…

I picked an actual “online only” example for a reason. Yet everyone is jumping around talking about other things.

Turning a battle royal into a lan only game sounds like the solution I was expecting in my replies. And then yeah, you can even route that over the internet.

But that’s not changing the design, really. It’s providing the infrastructure needed to run it, even if it’s lan only, and would need more to run it over the internet.

Of course it’s not. That’s why I made my initial reply.