Edward I

....so, the game? Not sure why you're playing a political simulator game if you think politics is pathetic. Apparently we're not average gamers then.

I don't think that's a sentence.

Yes

I didn't know that because I understand probability and therefore don't play keno, but I agree that's definitely too high.

On average, keno is a cash sink and so probably a good thing. To prevent gigantic winnings - which are problematic - cap the amount you can bet at a single time.

To reiterate the salient flaws in the fix: A daily cap is better than a rate limit, especially for away games. They create “liquidity” and make baseball function, analogously to markets. The 10% profits cutoff function should either only count for home games (to be fair to away gamers) or count away games as less than a whole game each (in case the former would allow for too much cash generated). If you insist on a rate limit, 5 seconds is a little long, especially for away games. Again, because they make less profits for the player and because they make the baseball “market” more “liquid,” they can’t be treated the same way home games are. The better captchas are a welcome addition to the game, thanks.

More effective captchas would be a welcome change in general, not just for baseball. Limiting the total baseball profits per day in one way or another isn't a horrible idea, but please make it an effective limit on the number of games and not the profits per game. If the point is to discourage botting or large amounts of time sunk into a grinding mechanic as well as to lower baseball profits, then you'd want fewer clicks anyway. Plus, fewer clicks would decrease server load.

Look, it’s not durmij’s fault that you’re historically illiterate. Don’t blame him for your gross misconceptions about the antebellum South and (I assume) Ukraine circa 1920.

(WARNING: SELECTING THIS VIEW WILL CRASH THE SERVER)

Taxes are 100/100, you're welcome to stay as long as you want.

The "x games per day at normal profits" is a better model because they can be played in rapid succession rather than over the course of hours, but placing a limit on the profitability per day is probably the best compromise.

And you went inactive after you brokered the deal, and then your successor went inactive after he was tasked with implementing it, and you're not t$ gov now, so why do your old friendships matter here?

It's a creative idea, but I doubt it would work or go over very well. There's a lot of ill-defined terminology in there - "intentional" cheating, "particularly heinous", "supported" by an alliance - that would make this hard to moderate, which would only compound the existing problem with inconsistent, opaque and seemingly arbitrary moderation practices. I doubt giving the moderators an even larger portfolio and relying on their discretion even more would end well. This also runs into the usual problem with trying to regulate alliances: there are no restrictions on making, joining or leaving them. I doubt this would further disincentivize cheating so much as it would incentivize moving the cheating to smaller, lesser-known alliances. This would also create perverse incentives for alliance membership practices: big alliances are more likely to be hurt by this since they have more members (and thus more potential cheaters) and because they accept lots of new members whose histories and integrity are unknown; cheaters could change alliances after getting a strike, thus either evading the penalties themselves or forcing their bad behavior to be double-penalized (and raising another sticky moderation question, since most alliances protect their applicants, but cheaters could apply at will and thus receive at least temporary protection); and alliances could create or move to new affiliations altogether if the penalties were ever onerous enough to matter.

Raiding tiny inactives isn't redistribution. It's just intra-class warfare waged by the unenlightened and class-unconscious.

I think you'd need to be thrown down a space station reactor core to be killed though. So, as long as you don't hold a wedding in the Death Star, or at least hire a better interior decorator, you should be fine.

I think NPO racked up enough kills over there to feel good without having to claim it killed the game too. But I take your point.

You'd be wrong then, independent of the ignorance of Smith's and Filmore's comments.

I've always found it interesting that CN's golden years were mostly when NPO was on top and the first half of its long decline was mostly when NPO wasn't. Whichever playstyle you prefer - the mode associated with NPO, or the mode associated with Mushroom Kingdom (among others) - you can't claim that the former "killed CN" when years of experience in the game directly contradict that statement.

lol we killed NS now too? It's one thing for Smith to make ignorant posts about CN without even bothering to consult its wiki, but this is a level of stupid above that. I challenge you to find a single informed person who believes NPO killed NS, even setting aside the fact that it's pretty hyperbolic to say NS is dead is in the first place.

When Malal switches from memes and shitposts to displaying a better working knowledge of treaty clauses than you, you've probably screwed up.

How many "chances" to "redeem" ourselves will we so generously be given? I can't express in words how blessed I feel right now to be a recipient of so much sincerity and goodwill from the community.

I'm sure it's not as bad as all that. He'll probably only use it on the bourgeoisie and the whales, and they're not really people anyway.

Not really a pun, not really my point, and not really a compliment.

...then would you, by chance, be a Grand Wizard with words?

Not really. All this does is prevent people from hiding stockpiles in alliance banks. It doesn't prevent people from hiding them or accumulating them. Instead the meta would likely change to hiding stockpiles in nations in extreme score ranges (either incentivizing the creation of multis in the extreme low tiers or further magnifying the influence and power of whales) or hiding stockpiles in beiged nations. The only sensible way to implement stockpile caps is universally - on nations as well as alliance banks - and even then it might not be a good idea.