Princess Bubblegum

Now Available At Any Time: TEXAS HOLD'EM I've modified Texas Hold'em so that it can be started without my presence. The only difference is everyone contributes a blind bet every game. Minimum pot limit: 100 Blind: 1/25 of the pot limit Command List: !txstart <pot limit> >>> Will begin a new game of Texas hold'em. The minimum pot limit at this time is 100 casino credits. !txjoin >>> Will join a game in the signups phase. !txbet <quantity> >>> Will make a bet during the betting phase. !txcheck >>> Will pass the turn onto the next player if no bet has been made and the player does not wish to make a bet. !txcall >>> Will match the current bet. !txraise <quantity> >>> Will match the current bet and raise it another <quantity> !txallin >>> Will make the bet the game's pot limit. !txfold >>> Will let the player fold and quit the game. !txhand >>> Will resend your hole cards to you Come on over to #casino and give Texas Hold'em a try today! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrwO8b9iq34

Introducing a new Player vs. Player vs. House casino game: MULTIPLAYER BLACKJACK In this Blackjack variant, up to four players may compete against each other, but they also compete against the House. The winner gets the entire pot! Note: This variant has no splitting on hands. Minimum wager: 50 Command List: !bjstart <wager> >>> Will begin a game of Multiplayer Blackjack. <wager> sets the amount each player contributes to the game pot. !bjjoin >>> Will join a game in the signups phase. !bjhit >>> During the player's turn, will add a card to their hand. !bjstand >>> Ends the player's turn. !bjsurrender >>> If the dealer is showing an Ace card, this command will return 50% of the player's wager to the player's account. !bjdouble >>> If there is only one player, the player may choose to Double Down. This will double the wager. The player will receive one more card as a hit, then the player's turn will end. Come on over to #casino and give Multiplayer Blackjack a try today! ​

There's a reason improvements were limited in the first place. Large nations aren't supposed to be super power-houses that max out their production on everything and export their extra resources. These improvements listed here just make large nations that much more OP. In the top-tiers, where nations are making 4 mil a day, this is what you're going to see: (I'm assuming stacking bonuses here... bonuses that reinforce each other would just make these numbers even higher) City Hall: +100k City Parks: +160k City Court Houses: +120k City Libraries(if per city): +766k This suggestion would basically just be boosting the top tiers. Implementing just this solution on its own would make things incredibly unbalanced. However, it could work if the commerce system were re-done like this suggestion. In that event, building these improvements should be fine because nations would essentially be sacrificing economic competitiveness to build these improvements. It would be a more balanced approach that doesn't essentially gift income to large nations (and gifting income like the OP's suggestion would just move the game dynamic further away from the intended one of inter-tier dependency).

Replacing oil with diesel doesn't make sense. Oil is a raw resource, diesel is not. Diesel is unnecessary when gasoline already exists in-game. If you think oil is unbalanced relative to coal, then that should be addressed (imo, it's not though). Why would we need wood power though? I just don't see the purpose other than make-work for sheepy. New nations are meant to use oil/coal due to the placement of natural resources by continent. Older nations are meant to use nuclear power or wind turbines. Creating a new power plant just seems superfluous. Not to mention wood power plants just seem like a technologically backwards thing to build given alternatives.

You never explained what rubber does or why it's needed. That seems unnecessary when there's already a mechanic of building infrastructure.

Instead of jeeps I'd like to see artillery pieces and have the ground units work like rock/paper/scissors where soldiers are weak against tanks, tanks are weak against artillery, and artillery is weak against soldiers. Diesel fueled power plants don't make sense in-game. I just assumed oil power plants were natural gas power plants and "oil" was a broad term that encompassed all unrefined fluid fossil fuels. And why create diesel when you have gasoline? Wood power plants don't seem to make much sense when you have wind turbine plants.

And you could be self-sufficient under my suggestion as well, but you'd be sacrificing economic competitiveness to do it. Though the current improvement limits for resource production could possibly be raised in conjunction with my suggestion without too much problem. The ITC would need to be changed, and I suggested it just multiply the points one has by a percentage (such as 115%, but this could be made to be higher). The subway would also need to be changed to a point system.

Small nations do make money without any economic improvements. The baseline income (0% econ) is $2.50. 100% econ is currently $7.50. Cosmetically, these numbers and the tax rate change with econ policies, but the basic formula is still the same as far as I'm aware. The upper limit (currently $7.50) could be changed to something like $10.00 to compensate for the across the board income losses this change would otherwise have on anyone with econ improvements.

I made that suggestion here: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5646-finite-quantities-of-raw-resources/page-2#entry91008 It would let you use up 100% of your improvement slots if you so chose and would help keep the desired dynamic of large nations being mostly importers of raw resources from small nations. The 100% level economic bonus could probably be made to have a higher cap on citizen income than it currently has to compensate for such a change.

don't forget #rolljemmm

I'm re-writing this proposal to highlight it at the top of the first page. I would suggest the following in an effort to introduce resource limits, increase interdependence of nations, and retain the envisioned economic model of lower-tier nations as resource exporters and high-tier nations as resource importers/cash exporters: Each resource can currently be found on three continents and each continent has three resources. Each resource is either abundant, common, or scarce on each of the three continents that it can be found, and each continent has 1 resource that it has in abundance, 1 that is common, and 1 that is scarce. Resources that are abundant receive +33% production rates. Common receive normal production rates, and scarce receive -33% production rates. By continent: North America: Coal (abundant) Iron (common) Uranium (scarce) South America: Oil (scarce) Bauxite (common) Lead (abundant) Asia: Oil (abundant) Iron (scarce) Uranium (common) Africa: Oil (common) Bauxite (scarce) Uranium (abundant) Europe: Coal (common) Iron (abundant) Lead (scarce) Australia: Coal (scarce) Bauxite (abundant) Lead (common) ============================ By resource: Coal: Abundant on North America Common on Europe Scarce on Australia Oil: Abundant on Asia Common on Africa Scarce on South America Iron: Abundant on Europe Common on North America Scarce on Asia Lead: Abundant on South America Common on Australia Scarce on Europe Bauxite: Abundant on Australia Common on South America Scarce on Africa Uranium: Abundant on Africa Common on Asia Scarce on North America As nation size increases, so does the costs of resources. The more land a nation has, the cheaper the resources become. (base cost) * ( 1 + (Nation Strength) / 500 ) * ( 20000 / (20000 + (total land) ) ) Finally, replace the current national econ level model with a point-based system. It should be replaced with a point system, where supermarkets contribute 4 points, banks 7, shopping malls 12, and stadiums 18. The nation with the most points would get 100% econ and would set that as the benchmark. All other nations would get a econ % based on their econ points relative to that top nation. There would need to be a lower limit for nations with no econ improvements at all, though. Improvement limits for econ improvements would be removed and replaced with a requirement system, where 1 bank requires 3 supermarkets, 1 shopping mall requires 2 banks, and 1 stadium requires 1 or 2 shopping malls. The international trade center project could multiply whatever econ points one has by 115%. With such a point system, the lower tier would no longer be effectively those below 1000-1100 infra per city. Currently, most nations are at 100% econ at 1100 infra/city, but with this suggestion, that level is changing, presumably usually rising as the top nation rises. The top nation would have to allocate most, if not all, of their slots to econ improvements to maintain 100% econ, effectively rendering them limited in what resources they can produce domestically, and making them a cash exporter and resource importer. This will help keep a relatively small number of top-tier, cash-exporting, resource-importing nations relative to lower-tier resource exporting nations.

You have some good points there. I think your suggestion that costs increase automatically is a good one. You could simply have a formula like: (base cost) * ( 1 + (Nation Strength) / 500 ) . ... so for every 500 NS, the cost doubles. If we wanted time to be a factor, we could have a formula like: (base cost) * ( 1 + (Nation Strength) / 500 ) * ( 1 + days old / 300 ) ... so at 300 days the cost doubles, 600 days it is triple the original, etc We could even factor land into it to discount resources when more land is purchased: (base cost) * ( 1 + (Nation Strength) / 500 ) * ( 25000 / (25000 + (total land) ) ) ... so the more land one has, the more the price is reduced. The first 25000 land would drop the price by 50%. The next 25000 land would drop the price another 16%, for a total of 66%... etc. I think that could work very well and is probably far superior to my suggestion in the OP. Another suggestion that I think might help keep a relatively small number of top-tier, cash-exporting, resource-importing nations, is to do away with the 100% econ as a hard cap. Instead I think perhaps it should be replaced with a point system, where supermarkets contribute 4 points, banks 7, shopping malls 12, and stadiums 18. The nation with the most points would get 100% econ and would set that as the benchmark. All other nations would get a econ % based on their econ points relative to that top nation. There would need to be a lower limit for nations with no econ improvements at all, though. Improvement limits for econ improvements would be removed and replaced with a requirement system, where 1 bank requires 3 supermarkets, 1 shopping mall requires 2 banks, and 1 stadium requires 1 or 2 shopping malls. The international trade center project could multiply whatever econ points one has by 115%. With such a point system, the lower tier would no longer be effectively those below 1000-1100 infra per city. Currently, most nations are at 100% econ at 1100 infra/city, but with this suggestion, that level is changing, presumably usually rising as the top nation rises. The top nation would have to allocate most, if not all, of their slots to econ improvements to maintain 100% econ, effectively rendering them limited in what resources they can produce domestically, and making them a cash exporter and resource importer. Again though, this isn't about raiding. I even said in a post above that I wouldn't care if my suggestion on stealing prospect limits was not implemented. It was a side thought, and not a key or core element to my proposal. In fact the suggestion made here in this post is superior and would not have an effect on raiding as far as I can see (unless land was made to be raidable at some point).

Though implementing it would probably be much too complicated for this game, I imagine it would work like real-world currencies, where nations can select their currency, either a sovereign currency or a collective one, where there is some source of the currency (eg a central bank) that can increase or decrease the amount of that currency in game. The currencies would rise and fall in respect to each other. Likewise the price of resources would fluctuate as well, so for a currency that is decreasing in value, the prices of goods would increase, whereas another nation that uses a different currency, one that's increasing in value, would see prices of resources decrease. The mechanics would also depend on if currency values were pegged to a standard "game currency" and rose and fell in relation to it, or if the game currency were replaced altogether with national currencies which would become relative only to one another (which would be far too much coding and too complicated, even if a cool idea).

The first sentence is a good point. The suggestion of increasing costs was based off other games I've played (hyperiums, bloc, Worlds at war) which all have some form of limited, non-renewable resources. I take issue though with you thinking this is all about the profit of raiders. This kind of thing has been proposed before by non-low-tier raiders (http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5233-economic-overhaul/page-2?hl=%2Bpollution+%2Bresources#entry80120). I believe there are clear problems with the current system compared to how the game designer envisioned the economic model of the game. http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1830-more-advanced-economies/#entry21045 The above link is Sheepy's explanation of how he wanted the game to work. If you don't think that's a good model, that's fine, but I'm arguing on how to fix the game to conform to the envisioned model. The original idea was not that nations grow indefinitely. You may want that, but that's not how it was supposed to work. It is meant to be a king-of-the-hill type game, where there's a soft cap on nation strength at some point due to the ever increasing time and resources required to grow. Those at the top are expected to be knocked down at some point, presumably through war, and replaced by up and coming nations. So we ask: If we want to keep to the envisioned economic model of the game... 1) Is that is what is happening currently? 2) Are there low-tier nations dedicated to exporting raw resources? 3) Are there high-tier nations dedicated to importing raw resources and exporting cash? 4) If not, can it be addressed by only doing things that increase resource prices and not restricting the supply of resources in some manner? For instance, pollution effects could be increased or more resource sinks can be implemented, and that might raise the cost of producing resources, but that does not limit the supply. 5) If resource prices are only increased, will there be a point where it is once again profitable for high-tier nations to produce resources domestically? Will doing something like increasing the pollution effects only be countered by the increasing costs of resources such that just constructing another recycling center or two still make domestic production rather than importing economically viable? 6) As the game gets older, will it be more likely or less likely that nations will quickly grow out of the lower tier (the tier where resource production is supposed to be preferable to econ improvements)? Will that mean that the pyramid economic structure will remain an upright pyramid, or will there be ever increasing amounts of 100% econ nations who produce resources domestically rather than import them from lower tiers? 7) Will it be a problem when high-tier nations approach 99,999 of each resource? Is that going to make high-tier nations more or less likely to import from low-tier nations? To address your first point: what would you think about tying resource prospecting/renewal to nation strength rather than the number of times it is done? That would make prospecting for resources prohibitive at some higher level, but not adversely affect a nation that gets knocked down to a lower tier.

The part I'd benefit from is the transferring of proven reserves, and that wasn't the core part of my proposal. Sheepy can take that out or reduce it if me benefiting from a game suggestion is the major concern. Yeah, the thing about exponential rates is they can still be stretched out. The cost can increase by 10% each time (1.1^X where X == the number of prospect missions or whatever). It would take 7.27 missions to double the cost relative to the first prospecting mission cost and 24 missions until the cost is 10 times the first mission. But the rates don't have to be exponential. Flat rate would probably work as well. Sheepy is trying to come up with resource sinks because the obvious result of the current system are nations having 99,999 of every resource. A few nations are already starting to approach that with some resources. In a year, it's a near certainty that it will be the case that some will have reached that point. So either resources need to be used faster or become more limited in some way. Another thing I've been seeing are larger nations self-producing resources and selling large quantities of these resources on the market. Sheepy's original vision was large nations being economically sufficient, but needing to purchase resources, and particularly raw resources, from lower-tier nations. I think there is a bit too much atomism or economic isolation among nations in that respect. There is no significant interdependence between tiers at the present that I see. If nothing else, the relative abundance of resources fits in quite well with already established mechanics and I think would make things a little more interesting and reduce economic isolation among nations a bit.

You could join the 99%. We're a well-respected alliance, adored by many, and dedicated to the proposition of peace and neutrality.

Please stop spamming this section of the forum with your personal attacks against me. This is the third time you've done it that I'm aware of, and as such I have reported you to moderation. Please refrain from doing so in the future. thank you.

Well another thought that occurred to me was make production rates vary per continent for each resource. For example, contents that are abundant with a resource get +25% production of that resource; continents that are scarce with a resource get -25% production. It doesn't make resources finite though, but it might be something that could be added.

Currently raw resources are virtually infinite. My proposal is to introduce some limits to the amount of raw resources that can be mined, introducing resource scarcity. Those limits can be extended by prospecting for a resources. Prospecting costs increase the proven reserves of the resource, but each prospecting expedition should either cost exponentially more with each use, or the expeditions discover declining amounts of new resources each time. Each resource can currently be found on three continents and each continent has three resources. In my proposal, each resource would have different finite quantities that can be produced. Each resource is either abundant, common, or scarce on each of the three continents that it can be found, and each continent has 1 resource that it has in abundance, 1 that is common, and 1 that is scarce. By continent: North America: Coal (abundant) Iron (common) Uranium (scarce) South America: Oil (scarce) Bauxite (common) Lead (abundant) Asia: Oil (abundant) Iron (scarce) Uranium (common) Africa: Oil (common) Bauxite (scarce) Uranium (abundant) Europe: Coal (common) Iron (abundant) Lead (scarce) Australia: Coal (scarce) Bauxite (abundant) Lead (common) ============================ By resource: Coal: Abundant on North America Common on Europe Scarce on Australia Oil: Abundant on Asia Common on Africa Scarce on South America Iron: Abundant on Europe Common on North America Scarce on Asia Lead: Abundant on South America Common on Australia Scarce on Europe Bauxite: Abundant on Australia Common on South America Scarce on Africa Uranium: Abundant on Africa Common on Asia Scarce on North America Abundant distributions are roughly 90 days of production for 10 mines (eg coal mines produce 6 per day == 5400 coal) Common distributions are roughly 60 days of production for 10 mines (eg coal mines produce 6 per day == 3600 coal) Scarce distributions are roughly 30 days of production for 10 mines (eg coal mines produce 6 per day == 1800 coal) If prospecting missions are increasing exponentially in cost, then prospecting missions will increase the limits of proven reserves respective to their abundance or scarcity. Prospecting for an abundant resources returns another 90 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 5400 coal). Prospecting for an common resources returns another 60 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 3600 coal). Prospecting for an scarce resources returns another 30 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 1800 coal). Prospecting can have varying degrees of success as well. The range can be perhaps randomized to within 75-125% of what's expected to return. If prospecting missions cost the same, then prospecting missions return lower proven reserves respective to their abundance or scarcity. Prospecting one time for an abundant resources returns another 60 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 3600 coal). Prospecting one time for an common resources returns another 40 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 2400 coal). Prospecting one time for an scarce resources returns another 20 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 1200 coal). Prospecting a second time for an abundant resources returns another 40 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 2400 coal). Prospecting a second time for an common resources returns another 27 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 1620 coal). Prospecting a second time for an scarce resources returns another 13 days of resource production for 10 mines (eg 780 coal). What's expected to come of this: Lower level nations can choose to sell resources to larger nations that have depleted their reserves, creating an inherent demand for lower level nations, and decreasing atomism among nations that just continue to grow indefinitely and produce their own resources, and who never really require much from outside trades. Since raw resources can be stolen, I expect that maybe this might incentivize wars. Winning wars could also transfer a portion of proven reserves of resources to the victor nations. For example, if both nations have coal as an available resource, then the defeated nation's proven coal reserves could be cut by 2/3 and the remaining 1/3 is transferred to the victor nation. obviously this would only work where resources are shared. This might also encourage more strategic war declarations where nations want to fight other nations of the same continent. Numbers in this proposal can be tweaked to suit what is thought to be appropriate. Edit: Additionally, perhaps moving one's nation by use of credits can reset resource reserves.

It is now

Except that bot has no wagers attached to it, hence it's not a casino game.

Introducing a new Player vs. Player casino game: WEREWOLF Werewolf, also known as Mafia, is a party game of 5 or more players. The majority of players in this game will be normal villagers. They are thying to root out the werewolves who have infested their village. The werewolves objective is to kill off all other players, but must do so without being outed as a werewolf. Another player takes the role of the Seer, who can investigate the roles of other players during the night phase. The current settings for the game are: Minimum wager: 100 Pot winnings are divided by the number of players on the winning team and evenly distributed to the winning team, living or dead. Wolves will get more if they win since there are fewer wolves relative to villagers. To partially compensate for this, an innocent child role was introduced for 8+ players. 5-8 players: 1 wolf, 1 seer, and rest villagers 8-12 players: 2 wolves, 1 seer, 1 innocent child***, and rest villagers 12-14 players: 3 wolves, 2 masons, 1 seer, 1 innocent child***, and rest villagers ***The innocent child can sometimes be the seer, making them a Child Seer. Command List: !wolfstart <wager> >>> Will begin a game of Werewolf. <wager> sets the amount each player contributes to the game pot. !wolfjoin >>> Will join a game in the signups phase. !wolfvote <player> >>> During the day phase, use this command to vote to lynch a player. /msg CasinoBot !wolfkill <player> >>> During the night phase, Werewolves use this command to kill a player. /msg CasinoBot !wolfsee <player> >>> During the night phase, the Seer uses this command to see the role a player. Come on over to #casino and give Werewolf a try today!

The most obvious problem would be the smaller nation's ability to counter attack. Presumably you'd have it so that the smaller nation, when attacking, would attack 20% of whatever force the larger nation has. That might work, however the larger nation has a larger pool of total troops and can replace them more easily. Here's an example of what happens Larger nation: 100,000 troops Smaller nation: 30,000 troops 30,000 (smaller) vs 20,000 (larger) Larger nation loses 10,000; Smaller loses 5,000 Now it's: Larger nation: 90,000 troops Smaller nation: 25,000 troops The next battle becomes: 25,000 (smaller) vs 18,000 (larger) Instead of: 25,000 (smaller) vs 10,000 (larger) The flip side of this would be that the smaller nation could potentially get ground/control/air control/blockade over the larger nation when fighting only 20% of the military units. Presumably this would also only work when the larger nation is the one doing the declaring, otherwise a small nation can up declare and fight 20% of the military of the larger nation.

Nope, no it's not. Of course, if it were an exploit, it's one that you have admitted to using and failed to report to the game administration, landing yourself and any confederates of yours in hot water.