Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
European Qoheleth (SANC)

Candidate Strength

Recommended Posts

I suggest that candidates get strengths based on how they came at the election historically like the winner gets 5 stars and I recommend this for all games. Going up to a strength of 5 is fine for American scenarios but with shorter ones like British ones there's going to be a lot of seats you won't be targeting so rather than it going up to 5 how about 4 with the historical winner getting a strength of 4, 2nd gets 3, 3rd gets 2 and last gets 1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Cabinet members, the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Father of the House, the Speaker, and other eminent members? Shouldn't they get a 5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, respectfully, that I do disagree with SANC's idea. There's no real practical reason to cut off the top number cap of candidate strength compared to other TheorySpark games. Also, part of his reasoning is an assumption that you, the game designer, are going to go back to a cap of 4 parties, like in some of the very first games, which I haven't seen as a tendency in later TheorySpark products, and which only a very few scenario designers (like SANC) have been in favour of for ALL scenarios. Frankly, I don't believe all scenarios are done justice by a 4 party cap, and certainly not modern British ones, and I would be in STRONG protest if he, as one individual, were allowed to have that preference of his imposed on me and all other scenario designers by you, the game designer. That's just my dissenting two bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, respectfully, that I do disagree with SANC's idea. There's no real practical reason to cut off the top number cap of candidate strength compared to other TheorySpark games. Also, part of his reasoning is an assumption that you, the game designer, are going to go back to a cap of 4 parties, like in some of the very first games, which I haven't seen as a tendency in later TheorySpark products, and which only a very few scenario designers (like SANC) have been in favour of for ALL scenarios. Frankly, I don't believe all scenarios are done justice by a 4 party cap, and certainly not modern British ones, and I would be in STRONG protest if he, as one individual, were allowed to have that preference of his imposed on me and all other scenario designers by you, the game designer. That's just my dissenting two bits.

The 4 party cap isn't the issue here. It was what I had in mind but really what's the point of say a Green party candidate bar its leader having a strength of anything other than 1? They NEVER win a seat apart from the one they currently have (their first parliamentary seat in their decades of existence) and as aforementioned that's its leader. I didn't make an assumption that he or anyone else would go back to a 4 party cap, I wouldn't be surprised if I was the only one who would support only having the parties that are in some way relevant and that have enough money and strength to gain anything beyond 2 seats, there's little point to having parties that don't even get 1/10 of the seats in if you can't play them in a way that's entertaining and worse yet they're basically an increased loading time; one leader file takes up as much memory as another no matter how many seats the party has. In the British scenarios I'm making there will be a group that has less than 1/10 the seat but this is called the Others and they're only in at all so Northern Ireland still gets seats since the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems don't win seats there. Just because a party has seats or even one seat doesn't mean it's relevant or worth having in; there are hundreds of seats in parliaments but only 2 parties ever come first and with hundreds of seats a party with a few seats doesn't really matter. Nobody is going to "impose my preference" on anyone, I've made a suggestion and he won't necessarily accept it and in any case you could just mod a scenario yourself to put in the tiny, memory clogging parties that aren't any fun to play as. You've said twice that he's the game designer, we know this and he knows it better than anyone. Yes I'm well aware that you would have strong protest; you have gone pretty ape about a 4 party cap in another thread; a thread where the idea was actually relevant but here you just conjectured that my idea of changing the candidate strength was related to the 4 party cap idea but it isn't. Take the last British game; candidates who said controversial things (apart from Gordon Brown) from the main parties were given a strength of 1 while candidates from the minor parties were given a strength of 2 or was it 1 (it's been years since I played the game) but you can't honestly say that a Respect candidate who didn't ruffle any feathers would have as much of a chance as a Tory who did. If you want to go ape about the 4 party cap idea do it in the thread where I brought it up; don't use an unrelated thread as a soapbox. We get it by now that you hate the idea; there's no point in reminding us. Have you ever played as the tiny parties in a British game? I have and it isn't fun; you'll double your measly seats at best and will still not even have 10 in a parliament of 650.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SANC

I want to apologize. I misread your intentions. I thought you were implying in some way that Anthony institute a 4-party cap hard coded into the game. If that wasn't what you were getting at, then I am sorry I jumped on you like that. I understand we've had differences of opinion before, I'm just all for a game engine that allows different types of scenario designers to fit their visions into the same game. So, I do hope you'll accept my apology for jumping to conclusions on your intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only mistake has been to read post #6 after putting you on my ignore list. I'm not making that mistake again so you've wasted your time doing the above post, whatever it says (more polemics and victim mentality* if how you've behaved so far is anything to go by). In the history of this forum your posts easily rank as the most uncivil in years.

*That's internet debaters for ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...