Generally, with Turkey out of the picture, Austria has claim to Serbia and Greece without question. Russia has an initial claim to Rumania but sometimes Austria will get it as part of the agreement. So that's five centers (Rumania, Bulgaria, and the Turkish home centers) of which Russia is entitled to three and Austria is entitled to two. What's your preferred way to make this division?
Crafting systems in MMORPGS have a bit of a reputation for being difficult to design and often poorly executed. A whole swath of them are just a barebones bridge between the gathering system and the gear which is the product of that grind, but even when developers do attempt to create 'skill based' crafting systems, they usually end up running into a brick wall. As a player I'm especially drawn to the fantasy of a crafting system with deep mastery where you can really express your ingenuity and creativity. But that ideal seems like it might be a cursed design problem. Players want to feel smart. They want to feel like tinkerers and scientists, exploring a system and pushing its limits to create exceptional things that nobody has been able to create before. The reality is that most players aren't special and the usual practical result of a developer trying to design a system to evoke that feeling is that all the novelty gets optimized out of it shockingly quickly. The wiki effect overpowers most attempts at depth and mastery and ultimately the complexity becomes a chore.
So how do you go about creating a system that feels challenging and stays challenging in the face of collaboration and effortless information sharing? The brute force solution would be to just pile on so much complexity that even with an entire player base working together, new improvements to recipes are still being found years later. But on top of being a nightmare to design, that doesn't really achieve the goal. You end up with a small group of players who are basically PhDs in your crafting system and occasionally make breakthroughs, while everyone else just copies the current best known recipe.
It feels like the only direction to go is towards randomness. A lot of crafting systems have randomness, but it's usually randomness in results. Random rarity tiers are a staple technique to instantly multiply the grind of a crafting system. But, I think that the right approach is to add randomness in the crafting materials themselves. By adding randomness to the starting materials, you make every single craft a unique experience. The most basic implementation of this is to simply assign a quality to every piece of gathered material. But where it actually gets interesting is when you give each piece of material a set of interdependent qualities that mesh directly with the crafting system and the random qualities of other materials. Instead of just grinding for a three star piece of wood and a three star ingot and slapping them together, you need to find two unique pieces of material that actually synergize within the crafting system to achieve the result you want. In that sort of system, all of a sudden even determining the quality of the material you've gathered is nontrivial. A player less experienced with the crafting system might overlook a technique to turn a piece of material with some strange attributes into something genuinely good.
However, if every piece of wood you chop or ingot you smelt is unique, that creates another problem: FOMO and analysis paralysis. When a player does finally get that godly piece of wood that can craft an amazing bow after hours of chopping, odds are they'll be afraid to actually craft with it. It will probably go right into their bank, never to see the light of day again while they do their crafts with the good but not exceptional quality stuff. The key driving factor of this behavior is granularity of results. If there are always marginal improvements to be had by doing a slightly better job crafting with an ingredient, players will be afraid to actually craft with an ingredient that is obviously high quality.
The solution to this is breakpoints, lack of granularity, and convergence of results. If the materials are all randomized and infinitely granular, but the resulting item is restricted to a small handful of quality tiers, you get the best of both worlds. Every single craft is a unique puzzle to solve, and every piece of material gathered looks different to the eye of an expert than a beginner. The potential of some materials falls smack in the middle of a difficulty tier. Anyone who looks at it knows you could pretty easily make a unique quality weapon from it. The interesting part is the ones that happen to be near the cusp. Maybe instead of grinding for hours to get a piece of material that you can use to make a legendary quality weapon, you snag something off the auction house that was appraised by a gatherer as rare tier, and you spend an hour tweaking the recipe to push it barely over the line and get a legendary quality weapon out of it. All of a sudden that opens up a genuine economic niche for players who are skilled in your crafting system, with genuine mastery that can't be looked up on a wiki, and none of it needs to be gated behind an experience grind.
As far as I know, there's no game that really attempts to use all of these principle together for a crafting system. For an example of a game with a great tactile, skill based crafting system, I really like Potion Craft: Alchemist Simulator. It has an excellent combination of infinite granularity within the actual crafting system, but with breakpoints and convergence of results. How you stir, heat, and dilute a potion is all continuous. But, the decider of the ultimate efficiency of your recipe is how many ingredients you use, and that's a discrete system. Optimizing a potion consists of making lots of tiny improvements to your procedure or planning out a new route in an attempt to get the same result with one fewer ingredient tossed in the cauldron. Accordingly, the resulting potions are all chosen from a set of predefined effects with three quality tiers. However, Potion Craft lacks the random inputs that I think are necessary to keep the system evergreen and always full of surprises. And of course the superb crafting system has a rather boring shop simulator wrapped around it rather than being part of an MMORPG. What do you guys think? What's your favorite crafting system in a game you've played?
WPT Gold 0.05/0.10 6 handed
Preflop (4.5BB)
Hero opens A♥️J♠️ UTG to 4BB
Loose fish in HJ calls
Semi-decent reg BTN 3-bets 12BB. We're both very deep stacked, about 500BB effective.
Folds around to Hero who flats, HJ calls as well.
Flop (40.5BB) 7♠️J♦️6♦️
Hero checks
HJ donks for 10.1BB, BTN calls
The board is pretty connected, and BTN tanked a bit before calling so I'm not too worried about overpairs and decide to put in the check raise to get some value from diamonds, T9, 98, TT, 99, KJ, QJ, JT.
Hero xr 31.3BB
HJ folds, BTN calls.
Turn (113.2BB) K♠️
Our hand is definitely marginal at this point after our check raise is called. I ended up I think overplaying this hand but I felt afraid to check it and get double barreled out of position. I'll comment results later.
I think the defining trait that allows people to publicly support red is, more than anything else, idealism. When you hear blue pushers try to make rational arguments against red (such as here), they often rely on begging the question that voting red has some broader social cost if everyone were to do it. And this is true for many real life analogies of the red/blue problem. Mentalities that lead to things like nimbyism rely on ignoring the lost global utility of certain individualistic choices. This is why blue support often hinges on vulnerable groups such as babies.
The red/blue problem is more sterile than a lot of real life dilemmas in that the opportunity cost of pressing red is essentially zero and pushing red doesn't prevent anyone else from pushing red or make it any more difficult for them to do so. The willingness to take such an idealized scenario at face value (usually willingly ignoring the implicitly stated participation of mentally unfit people in the original problem) is what defines red pushers.
When blue pushers modify the original problem, they tend to add material downsides to the red button, which in a certain way changes the problem to more accurately reflect real life. Most red pushers when faced with these types of modifications readily change their vote.
Blue pushers arrive at the conclusion that blue is the favorite by a heuristic argument. Imagine that instead of a private vote, everyone is assigned red or blue by default and then has one minute to change their vote. In addition, there is a live feed showing the vote total at all times. In all likelihood blue would win in this scenario. The distribution starts 50/50, some people who were assigned red change their vote, and everyone sticks with blue because they see it already has the majority. This is the way blue pushers see the original problem. They imagine that initially, uninformed people will be roughly evenly split, and so it only takes a few staunch blues to all but guarantee victory.
However, blue voters only feel confident in their moral grandstanding when they're sure that blue will win. When red pushers modify the button problem, they tend to produce scenarios that are logically identical, but which weaken the heuristic reasoning that leads people to believe that blue will win. The best example of this is the 5 button problem. Once you introduce a slippery slope that disrupts the 50/50 default mindset that blue pushers have, the consensus rapidly collapses towards everyone pushing red. The other thing that blue voters tend to do is assuming, even in situations where only rational, highly individualistic people vote, that a significant portion of people will vote blue. On the planet Arand, for example, the far more likely outcome is that over 99% of people vote red.