Sub Thought to the poker thread

DeletedUser

I'm sorry But I do not think that poker is a game that WOULD fit into the mechanics of this game.. BUT Blackjack against the house.. a VERY costly building(think level 15 just to open it) built into the game would/could fit Although it would need to be single player to fit the mechanics of the game and the money earning potentional for the town would be 100% of the house WINNINGS at the end of 24 hours

Seeing as players could beat the house thus bankrupting it.. it would be interlinked to the town funds.. so that if the towns "casino" gets busted your actually breaking the house so to speak.. and to reopen your casino the town must deposit lets say 5000$

Puts a whole new spin on the game
 

DeletedUser

Or a simpler method is not to let people take their money away... You buy chips to play in the house, but you can only cash chips in for perk's or status items, like $1000 lets you buy a brag product (poker chip- sells for $1) to put in your characters product box, $5000 worth of chips gets you a gold nugget, $20,000 worth of chips allows you to change your avatar picture...[they still have that gambler one somewhere, right?]
It allows people to play, but there is little danger of someone purposely losing in order to pool funds.

As for methods of making the poker fair to the players, I have no idea- perhaps each time someone exits/joins the table, they vote on a pre-selected max raise? Allow a player to "call" with the last of their chips, so you can't buy the pot?
 

DeletedUser

Yes it kills all the camaraderie that the other proposals fostered , but it eliminates the abuse issues . I would love to see player verses player , dealer sets the rules poker . I don't think it will happen . To many folk know nothing besides the "Texas Hold'em" variant on seven card stud to allow any other type to gain wide support . If We are to see gambling in the game , I fear it will have to be some tame verses the house type game . That's the only way I see it passing both anti-abuse and simplicity of addition muster .
 

DeletedUser3741

Or a simpler method is not to let people take their money away... You buy chips to play in the house, but you can only cash chips in for status items

Great Idea play poker for items in the "product" slot

fun guaranteed waste of money
 

DeletedUser

If this is what poker is then I'd rather not have it. Playing against an automated house is just an empty anodyne bot challenge.
 

DeletedUser3741

I wouldnt mind having a automated house as a player to reduce the amount we win by having someone that equates to a guaranteed loss

Since in a poker game no money is actually gained or lost, its merely "transferred"

automated players in a large table would cause some of that money to be loss, but if its ONLY bots playing like Ulthor said, theres no interest in it

Poker or any gambling can be used as potential cheating by losing on purpose to transfer money, a few automated players would help in to prevent this

Automated players - Since if automated players can win, it also means they can lose, so the only way to effectively use them to remove money from the system is that while they are playing poker, no money is actually added from them, This way they wouldnt contribute to a problem of creating money from poker, they will merely serve that if they ever get a winning hand they will reduce the amount of money in the systems
 

DeletedUser

The potential cheating you are trying to combat is already freely available. I'm not going to describe it because i don't want to encourage it. to be honest it is not in reality a big factor in the game.
What i don't really understand is why you feel the need to remove money from the game?
 

DeletedUser

Of course you are right on that score but poker is one of the few activities that doesn't add to that.....in fact if goods are pawned it diminishes it. Don't expect poker to solve all the structural problems of the game in one fell swoop.........unlike most suggestions it IS actually counter-inflationary.

By the way I think the other thread was closed prematurely. We still need to tharsh these things out and are making good progress.
 

DeletedUser1105

I agree Ulthor. Hightower said this when closing the thread:
"Feel free to regroup your thoughts and start another thread."

What's the f point of closing it then, if we are still to discuss it? It makes sense to keep it all together for the time being. There is already this thread and another one now discussing poker. So when it comes time to do another proposal, whoever does it (and it won't be me this time) will have to collate the views from 3 different threads.

It's causing more work.

I think poker is a great addition, and I was all for discussing the issues and finding ways around it, but if Hightower says it can only be against the computer then I am very much against the idea and will vote no if it ever gets to stage. Until then, I'm gonna refrain from the poker discussions.
 

DeletedUser

Perhaps what he had in mind was that we were ready to submit a firmer proposal. Would have been nice if he's asked you though.
 

DeletedUser

Would have been nice if he pm'ed me to ask it to be opened, I was trying to move things along.

The thread is reopened.
 

DeletedUser1105

I'm sorry Hightower, I didn't know that was the procedure. I thought when a thread was closed, that was the end of it.

I agree with HT's view that we need a firmer proposal, and that there is still some way to go to stop the possibility for abuse. It just makes sense to discuss ways around that in the same thread, and THEN submit a better summary than the one that's there.

Thank you, HT, by the way.
 
Top