3 ms·

should have just had a vote every 10 seconds... most voted answer wins?

• steveklabnik 13y ago
  From the BBC article: > A five-second rule was introduced at one stage to try to bring some order as several players typed commands at the same time. Whichever command was typed the most over a five-second period was carried out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26240191 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26240191 Unsure what happened to it, though.
  • alnis 13y ago
    The voting interval made the game too slow to be enjoyable, so players rebelled by spamming the start button until the creator rolled back the change.
  • ilyanep 13y ago
    People were generally opposed because it felt like "cheating". I'm sort of on this side -- I think the "anarchy" experiment is pretty fun to watch, though I do think a "democracy" experiment would be interesting to run separately. The stream can now vote between the two modes and it'll switch if one receives enough votes.
• dmm 13y ago
  If enough players vote for democracy a 5 second rule is implemented.
• minimaxir 13y ago
  Currently, the stream appears to be implementing a hybrid of aggregate vote and random vote (democracy vs. anarchy). Oddly enough, the aggregate vote is doing worse than the random vote.
  • bentcorner 13y ago
    I think it's because of the streaming lag. The stream is several seconds behind the chat and people are submitting commands based off of where the stream is, not where the game is. A version that played the game on your local PC (with periodic save state syncs maybe) would probably be more robust (and quicker to play).
  • KVFinn 13y ago
    >Oddly enough, the aggregate vote is doing worse than the random vote It's simply because aggregate makes the game so much easier that it makes the stream seem less interesting. Progress is not inevitable with the original system, it's miraculous. With democracy it actually plays the game somewhat normally.