30 Mar 2026Pey hasn't streamed WoW in 25 days. I'm not too worried, looking at the stream she did a week later. But suppose she reads this site, and posting here was a valid way of communicating with her, and suppose she shared this idea. I think she would fail to get people to use it.
"I checked Imane's Chirp Club account by accident since the tab reloaded because the process associated with it was gone, and I won't check her account again unless I think that Ellie thinks that Imane reads the weblog for the idea"
31 Mar 2026
"in three days for real, if nothing interested has happened, I will check if the person on Reddit replied to me and post about WoW there, and probably also say something to Camille Cooke" 01:23
post Token DKP on classic plus, how to fix leveling in retail
story coherence
Result: people would look stupid for not sharing it. A result that would not have occurred, or at least not to the same degree, if someone more famous had shared it. Every day that passes that someone famous doesn't share it, it gives people with less influence this dilemma: share it and risk making everyone look stupid, or don't share it and have a 100% chance of more people being killed in Ukraine, Iran, Lebanon, Sudan, Myanmar etc.?
So I was even thinking of trying once again to get Ghostcrawler aka Greg Street to share it. His MMO shut down:
Fantastic Pixel Castle (Project Ghost) will be shutting down as of November 17
I had just posted this on wowclassic.plus, and like a lot of the suggestions I've posted (without saving them locally) I think it's broad enough to be relevant to other games:
Turn the PvP system into a way of identifying skilled players
Classic is lacking this at the moment. 80% of players in the survey want arenas, 66% want rated BGs, 66% want Heroic dungeons, 50% want Mythic dungeons, and 40% want multiple raid difficulties, but the problem is that these are all instanced content. You are not really helping other players, and interacting with other random players is — for many players — what Classic is all about. Helping those on your faction, and fighting with those on the opposite faction, which creates a problem for players on that faction which they then can solve by helping each other.
So all of the above systems, that are present in retail, could give a way to identify skilled players, but it would be measuring players doing activities that don't help random players on the same faction the way that participating in world PvP helps them.
Players want to be seen as skilled. If the way to do this is to queue up for instanced content, then retail has shown that players will do it. But why not make the way to do it to find and defeat difficult opponents in world PvP?
Players are used to thinking of the honor system as just a way to get gear. This is certainly what it becomes when everyone can eventually get to Rank 14 by doing battlegrounds for 2 hours per day. But what if we remove gear as the main reward from getting a high rank, and make the rank itself the reward? Gear could still be earned from PvP, just don't associate it with PvP ranks.
The most obvious problem is that the PvP in the Classic phase before BGs turned into roaming death squads. This is because the honor calculation doesn't care about numerical imbalances in fights. It's hard to penalize people for grouping: people already complain about XP from mobs being split in groups, even though there's a bonus, so a group of 5 players that kill a mob worth 100 XP each get 28 XP (140 XP total). If a 5v1 kill of a player worth 100 honor is split with no bonus, it's 20 honor, and having a penalty would make it seem even worse.
But if the honor system is like a ratings system, where points decrease for losing or dying, then grouping can have a penalty of more points lost on death (and fewer points lost if outumbered). It's just too complex to describe in this already-long post.
What with him temporarily renaming his Chirp Club username to @occupygstreet, a clear reference to Occupy Wall Street, it felt he wanted this idea to be used if it would, in fact, reduce inequality, but he was presented with the dilemma mentioned above, as well as maybe the complication of Sherine's involvement. Considering that Sherine deleted her Chirp Club account, I think it's safe to say, 13 years later, that Sherine is not going to publicly share this idea.
He talked about AI in Oct 2025:
AI may one day accelerate game development. But it’s not happening today. All of these layoffs are just to cut opex and make the stock prices go up. It will lead to empty portfolios for the next few years. https://nitter.net/Ghostcrawler/status/1983346428983554501
I mean layoffs happen for lots of reasons. But if a company is claiming they don’t need workers because AI is going to make their games or movies or books today, that’s a little premature. (It’s better at music.) https://nitter.net/Ghostcrawler/status/1983351116097359965
I’m sorry for my friends at Amazon who were trying to keep the MMO dream alive https://nitter.net/Ghostcrawler/status/1983351685784518744
He says 'the' MMO dream, not 'their' MMO dream; compare all the videos I've been watching about modern MMOs being bad.
I do think it's remarkable how 'AI' has gone from inventing fake court cases in a lawyer's thing that they submitted in court without checking the references, to being used by software engineers to call functions from libraries that the programmer doesn't know about, due to the vast number of available libraries.
https://nitter.net/yokoono/status/2020589254208827400
I understand the purpose of the game mode.
I wanted to create a new chess game, making a fundamental rather than decorative change.
You've heard the story of Napoleon playing against the mechanical Turk?
Shortly thereafter, Napoleon attempted an illegal move. The Turk returned the piece to its original place and continued the game. Napoleon attempted the illegal move a second time, and the Turk responded by removing the piece from the board entirely and taking its turn. Napoleon then attempted the move a third time, the Turk responding with a sweep of its arm, knocking all the pieces off the board.
You wrote in 1966,
There comes a moment when you feel like maybe you want to cheat, or you want to convince your opponent which pieces were yours.
Who invented the rule that you can't move white pieces that start on the other side of the board? Is this rule listed somewhere that players can see it? Just because the setup looks like the setup in a traditional chess game, why should players assume that rules, or even goals, are similar?
It immediately dispenses with the idea of war and a battle, because if you are the same, you don’t have a war. Who are we fighting? And why?
You start to really understand that it doesn’t matter. We’re together. We’re on the same side. You realize that it’s not important to win.
I just think of the scene from Neon Genesis Evangelion: 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance that begins with this, and ends with an explosion:
Mari Singing Scene in English & Japanese
The video description links to an upload of the full scene in English. It's a stark contrast to the attitude of the main male character leading up to his first battle, best described as 'unwilling'. This is, of course, partly an intentional subversion of expectations: people expect males to want to fight, and males expect females to shun fighting.
Rather than linking a video of monkeys fighting in Thailand after tourism decreased during Covid lockdowns (they look the same but still fight as two big teams), I will just say that I have written (in emails, not necessarily here) about how war is related to the 'hidden problem', causing people to fight when they otherwise wouldn't want to.
But most people already understand it to some degree. Just like they would agree that it would be better for an economy, and it would create more jobs etc., for someone to distribute $1 billion to 100 million poor people, giving them $10 each, than for them to give it all to Elon Musk, who apparently now has $840 billion.
Another video that I didn't watch, but a comment:
No comments:
Post a Comment