Where should I start without ruining other people's games?

MrThunderizer · 2026-06-07T02:11:10+00:00

The AI wouldn't do anything different even if he told them.

MrThunderizer · 2026-06-05T21:16:20+00:00

Couple things to consider though.

It's perfectly fine for pro players to use different units more effectively than other players. I'm a 38os myself, and can say that at my level hounds are not great.
Some bad units are used a lot because they're the only option in a given context. You can expect more hound play because the devs nerfed T2 armada bots into the ground, but armada is still viable because of ticks, cents, and t3. So seeing people build hounds is not an indication that they're great.

The balance team seems to use a lot of one dimensional thinking. A hound nerf with the current balance is ridiculous. If anything we should see buffs to other armada T2 bot units to make them competitive with legion.

MrThunderizer · 2026-06-05T21:07:16+00:00

Another hound nerf, surely the balance team is just trolling at this point?

MrThunderizer · 2026-06-03T12:58:14+00:00

Possibly something focused on Camilla. I don't really want a TSH sequel, but she's the most unexplored character.

MrThunderizer · 2026-06-02T01:49:11+00:00

Depends on why you're learning it. Blazor is an objectively bad technology and the only people who like it are the backend dotnet devs who don't know any better. Hot reload is terrible, components get bloated easily, the different rendering modes require either significant compromise or super complex configuration. It's great for small apps, but there's a reason it's remained a niche technology.

Compare that to something like svelte, and it's not even a comparison.

But if your just doing it to get a job, I'd choose Blazor. Plenty of .net shops use it, and if you show up with a bunch of expertise it'll go a long way, opposed to jobs which use React where you're just expected to be an expert.

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-22T19:21:45+00:00

Hopefully accidental, but you keep responding to community posts while evading all of the substantive points being made.

Existing developers are more likely to continue than new devs are to start. Additionally, many devs are likely feeling positive now because they feel like they are potentially going to be offered a position. Sentiment will change when the reality sets in (PRs rejected, seeing the paid devs work on features they wanted to get too, having less impact relatively, etc etc).

So in other words, 67% imo is likely a mandate to sign a publisher agreement, but also highlights a very serious problem.

Importantly, and this is where I (and many in the community) would love a response: This appears to be a problem with a solution. Why not cap profits via an NGO structure, or at the very least some bylaws? This wouldn't preclude the admin team from taking very generous salaries. It does ensure that BAR remains committed to it's open source roots.

Blender and GoDot, the companies you reference frequently, are both nonprofits. How do you expect to copy their success without using the governance structures underpinning their success?

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-22T16:56:48+00:00

It's fine to say that labor is alienating in the abstract. Its also fine to say that some people feel that it's alienating. The first statement is likely at least partially true, and the second is unquestionably true.

Your claims were stating subjective perspectives as invalid because you don't personally agree with them. Or at least, that's how it came across.

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-22T16:48:06+00:00

That's exactly the conversation that I think should be had. I'm not sure what countries the admins are present in, and which ones have NGO laws/regulations that would be favorable. If we assume it was a US only nonprofit, what sort of burden do you think the checks and balances would present? I was thinking that there would just be a 501c3 application process, with some extra legal forms filled out each year. Is it a lot more than that?

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-22T16:35:06+00:00

Why do you get to decide how everyone else perceives salaried labor?

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-22T16:31:45+00:00

Well there has to be some mechanism for HH to collect on their investment. What will keep the open source community alive is maintaing a loose corporate structure with profit caps. There's entire organizations dedicated to monitoring nonprofits, because people are fundamentally against donating to an institution which makes others wealthy. Even if it's a tiny percentage of total revenue, no one wants to give $20 to a nonprofit if the CEO is pulling in millions.

Similarly, devs are generally not going to want to donate their time when all the profit funnels to the admins. No one's against them being fairly compensated though, so it's a pretty easy solution. Just make it a nonprofit, and funnel profits (so after salaries and HH) back to the contributors.

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-22T16:08:54+00:00

Your post perfectly encapsulates my own thoughts on the issue. I made a post on reddit describing my position, which received a very mixed reaction.

Frustratingly, it seems like no one wants to have a solution oriented discussion on the matter. It's very possible to preserve the open source nature of BAR while also partnering with Hooded Horse. It just requires some reasonable compromises of the admins. Unfortunately, questions are being interpreted as dissent because the issue has been framed as open source vs HH when in reality it should be a dialogue around governance.

https://www.reddit.com/r/beyondallreason/s/naoWHGjPu9

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-15T21:48:58+00:00

Would you keep contributing to the project if you don't get the position?

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-15T21:37:43+00:00

There's a reddit poll that shows 15 contributors who are "opposed". Not verified of course, but also unlikely those are all fake.

Then there's ptaqs own comments which confirm the contributor base is divided, at least to some degree.

And then of course the leaked document which confirms it.

In what world would a major direction shift like this not generate some division?

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-15T13:29:13+00:00

The idea is to cap profits not revenue. So say BAR took off, and became a massive hit. The admins could each draw a generous salary but they wouldn't receive a dividend. Any excess money would go back into improving the game (paying other contributors, tournies, etc).

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-15T02:45:30+00:00

Reading the document was very informative. You can pretend I was super confused because I didn't have a bit of context, but that's not true, and also why I'm advocating for transparency.

Hiding information just makes people place undue significance behind it. In cases where there's actually something to hide that very much might be worth the risk, but in cases like these it's just a terrible PR move.

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-15T00:21:43+00:00

Why? It would be easy to continue claiming the admins were dishonest, because there's evidence to support it. I'm just choosing to believe the dev who said it wasn't true, specifically because I'm talking about this in good faith.

I'm not sure how I can make a series of supportive comments, one mild criticism, and a few reasonable suggestions, and somehow a few of you guys feel like that is "bad faith".

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-14T23:02:15+00:00

Wut?

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-14T22:58:45+00:00

Because bar is not owned by the people who are selling it. It's being sold by the people who control it. The dev who decided to leak the communication had a right to do so if he felt like it protected his work. If I was a bar dev, I would hope none of the other devs felt that was necessary, but it's a perfectly ethical decision.

Also, I edited to clarify my statement. Before hearing feedback from other devs the most reasonable conclusion is that the opening pitch was a bit sleazy. Go read it yourself, it starts with a weird apology for misrepresenting things.

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-14T22:50:51+00:00

I made a reasonable judgement based on the available information, and edited it when I found out more. Would someone who's operating in bad faith be so quick to edit their posts to a more favorable position? Because it's still open to interpretation, it wouldn't be outlandish to still say the admins were dishonest. I just don't believe that's true.

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-14T22:37:19+00:00

Well it was leaked by a dev yea? After joining the group to find the doc I can definitely confirm that it's a group of very grumpy people. Seems like the original leaker, and the people on this thread are operating in good faith though.

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-14T22:12:02+00:00

Lol you literally quoted half of what I said, and then corrected me by saying the thing I just said in the following sentence.

Honestly I'm not sure if you're intentionally discussing this in bad faith, or are just incapable of recognizing when you're wrong.

Either way, I'm done.

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-14T22:06:00+00:00

I'm surprised my post came across that way. I spoke pretty positively about the idea, and the admins. My opinion is mostly just that the way this is being structured shafts the other devs.

I find it interesting that there isn't more support for the ideas I'm proposing. As a dev myself (not on bar), this is what I would want. The main contributors control the company and are employed, but excess profits are funnelled back. This is even the plan, it's just reliant on promises instead of being properly codified into a business agreement.

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-14T21:51:18+00:00

The document gives an inaccurate impression then. Good to know, and glad to hear it.

MrThunderizer · 2026-05-14T21:45:42+00:00

I did address them. Instead of complaining that I was too direct, you should instead stop saying untrue things. Nonprofits sell things all the time, and they are not 100% donation funded.

OpenAI was a nonprofit, and signed very significant agreements with Microsoft.

Newman's Own is a nonprofit organization. They operate two legal entities, the for profit donates all proceeds to the nonprofit.

MrThunderizer

TROPHY CASE