You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Rejecting HF21 in its current state
I agree it's not the right approach. Overall, these changes probably make Steem slightly better, so I do not oppose them. But I also think they are not well considered and that most of them probably will not solve any problems. Implementing a basket of new things without simulating them is purely reckless.
EDIT: After further consideration, I've turned against this set of proposals also. They are a bad idea.
The problem is the lack of changes of the rules which turned Steem into a very stale and boring game where the strategy to optimize your earnings is pretty clear. I don't know if new rules will be 'better', this type of things are way too chaotic to be analyzed.
In my opinion, any change is good at this point, and doing more and more iterative changes in the future is the key to get something that ressembles a 'working system'.
That's clearly impossibly false.
Why doesn't dTube work for folks on laptops? I can't view videos on dTube, and I've never received a response from you in most of a year's seeking answers here, on Discord, and email. FFS, at least acknowledge that there's an issue or that I've broached it with you.
Honestly missed your message from 3 months ago, I'll reply now. Videos have been loading / uploading kinda fine (even though no HD) for a while now.
Thanks for responding. Sorry for my tone, but I've been unable - and continue to be unable - to view dTube video for a long time, and have not previously received response.
I cannot today view dTube video.
Thank you.
That's an interesting thought. I agree that it'll cause a short-term disruption, but then soon enough people will find the best ways to optimize their earnings.
I'm fully in favour of making iterative changes, but iteration can only happen with... iterating. That requires making one change at a time, testing against a control, and studying the results of said change. Since HF16, we have had all kinds of things bundled in, and any empirical evidence to suggests what works becomes obfuscated.
Things are so broken here that I'm almost going to buy the argument that even a potentially bad change is good at this point. Almost...
soon enough people will find the best ways to optimize their earningsCompletely true. Not all people will adapt at the same speed though. But it doesn't change the fact that it cannot be perfectly balanced.
The concept of 'perfect imbalance' is to change the game often enough, in a way that regularly changes the optimal strategy, so that these fastest adapting player would be the ones winning overall. This is what you can already see happening in competitive esports game. They have the same issue that their games become stale very quick (because of high competition and very complex rules impossible to balance) and they all need to use the 'perfect imbalance' concept to keep their userbase interested.
In practise they just edit the config file (which contains all stats about characters / items) once every two weeks, based on the data of played games under current rules, and switch it up so that the game feels fresh and competitive again every two weeks.
As I've mentioned in a different comment, eSports games work because exploits are fixed, excessive abusers are banned, and countermeasures are implemented; the key being all of the above is done in a very timely manner. Steem will need a new paradigm needs to be implemented if it wants to achieve what eSports and pay-to-win games have. It's pointless if each change takes 6 months to implement.
I agree, fixing exploits comes first ;)
I think inaction would be worse. I am optimistic about 50/50 rewards split. Not sure about the impact of the other 2 components, but I think 50/50 rewards split has a potential of making Steem a more attractive asset to invest in.