Jump to content
270soft Forum
MattyN

Feature You'd Most Like to See

Recommended Posts

Sorry to now be the most recent comments in a row here.

Something I was thinking about was that "Experience" could be done differently to have more impact, by separating it into categories. For example, Executive, Legislative, Domestic, Foreign, or something like that... 

Then there could be candidates who may have a ton of legislative experience in both domestic and foreign issues, but no executive experience; candidates who have a ton of executive experience and domestic experience (like a governor), adequate legislative experience, and no foreign experience.

I suppose this could be made even more complex by then having issue categories, so maybe this entire concept is overkill... But it could be interesting to have more attributes to highlight or attack. And then the potential in how debates could go, or policy speeches...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Experience could be made into more categories. The game has a way to cover this to an extent, which is by adding an issue such as 'Foreign Experience' and then locking the starting positions. My concern with making those kinds of categories is the game starts to become even more complex than it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One solution to this would be being able to add attribute issues beyond the main four. They would be treated as issues for purposes of attack ads and so on, but wouldn't effect the game in other ways such as the core 4 attribute issues (Leadership, Experience, Issue Familiarity, and Integrity) do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin_270 Thanks for adding credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would find it helpful for there to be default attitude option for relations with other candidates? The default attitude would be used to specify the default spin direction for news articles. Eg if I want to be friendly to certain candidates have the dropdown preselect Help.
____
More tutorials and guides. I learned way too much from trial and error, and restarted my campaign like 4 times as a result.

______

Edit: Since ads are so much more important now: replace the start ad button with a recreate ad button (popup for confirmation) when an ad is finished. The button would reset the ad to 1 day out of 7. This reduces number of clicks significantly. Even better would be an autorenew toggle. Reduces micromanagement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we can already do this and IDK how, but I think being able to have Endorsers/Surrogates as VPs would be interesting, and a good way to alter the game a bit (for example, having a candidate tap one of their surrogates who are their spouse/relative, or tap a celebrity endorser.) This could also cut down on potential overlap between endorsers and vp candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lizphairphreak

This is a nice idea, it would just require having all the relevant vice-leader info inputted for surrogates as well. I don't think it will happen soon, but the basic architecture for making this happen is being implemented (uniting how leaders, vice-leaders, and surrogates are represented in certain ways on the technical end of things).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another feedback based on scenario editing: a way for us to edit scandal research speed OR to edit specific candidate issue penalty/bonuses. Eg I want to have Jeb Bush have a permanent penalty on War on Terror (legacy of George W), or to allow a candidate to have a low integrity/high corruption stat (to be attacked via speeches/ads) but not be inundated with scandals.
___
W.R.T. the ads, I made a workaround for myself by just increasing the max ad duration time so I don't have to click so much.
____
Other scenario event editing:
* Trigger for not leader
* Not currently possible for one event to have 2 outcomes with different issue types, or momentum shifts
* Not possible for issue position shift to be localized to a specific region (eg an event is polarizing, causes left/right regions to shift further to the extremes)
* No trigger based on who is winning/not winning in a given region (in % vote and delegates, to simulate superdelegate backlash in 2016)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recount

Network Play

Unlimited parties

Re-election feature (After the election, you get be President for a while, make decisions on current events, then see if you can get re-elected.)

Easy-to-understand polling descriptions (the descriptions for custom polling make you not want to make the polls realistic due to the fact they are so complicated)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we have some version of the old "watch list" back from the early versions of Congress Forever? For the legislative elections with a lot of competitive seats, it can take hundreds of clicks just to switch on ads in the seats I'm contesting, and I rarely if ever try to use the "target" function on every last one of them, as that would cost too much and eat up a lot of EPs. A watch list that lets me filter the competitive seats in the ad screen would make running ads significantly less tedious.

And I'll put in my usual plug for making the fluctuations more even on election night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking a lot about fundraising due to the NY gubernatorial primary this week. I think it would be interesting if fundraising was more complex, and that there were different types of fundraising. What I mean here is that right now, more and more candidates are refusing corporate donations and so bolstering their appeal to some voters but also limiting the amount of funds they take in. I think that would be an interesting level to add to fundraising. As well as the potential for digital fundraising (which could be done in a similar mechanism to ads in the game.) For me, this would add a really interesting layer to the game which right now acts as though fundraising is as simple as just going to a place and having an event, when it has in actuality become a much for intricate process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lizphairphreak said:

I was thinking a lot about fundraising due to the NY gubernatorial primary this week. I think it would be interesting if fundraising was more complex, and that there were different types of fundraising. What I mean here is that right now, more and more candidates are refusing corporate donations and so bolstering their appeal to some voters but also limiting the amount of funds they take in. I think that would be an interesting level to add to fundraising. As well as the potential for digital fundraising (which could be done in a similar mechanism to ads in the game.) For me, this would add a really interesting layer to the game which right now acts as though fundraising is as simple as just going to a place and having an event, when it has in actuality become a much for intricate process.

Sorry, didn't finish a thought. The idea of "corporate donations" in the game could mean that a candidate could take in larger amounts in one shorter time, but it would create a larger possibility for negative stories / scandals.

Also, giving endorser organizations (at least some) some funds to donate could be a way to make this even more realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, lizphairphreak said:

I was thinking a lot about fundraising due to the NY gubernatorial primary this week. I think it would be interesting if fundraising was more complex, and that there were different types of fundraising. What I mean here is that right now, more and more candidates are refusing corporate donations and so bolstering their appeal to some voters but also limiting the amount of funds they take in. I think that would be an interesting level to add to fundraising. As well as the potential for digital fundraising (which could be done in a similar mechanism to ads in the game.) For me, this would add a really interesting layer to the game which right now acts as though fundraising is as simple as just going to a place and having an event, when it has in actuality become a much for intricate process.

 

6 hours ago, lizphairphreak said:

Sorry, didn't finish a thought. The idea of "corporate donations" in the game could mean that a candidate could take in larger amounts in one shorter time, but it would create a larger possibility for negative stories / scandals.

Also, giving endorser organizations (at least some) some funds to donate could be a way to make this even more realistic.

I completely agree, ADD THIS @admin_270!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep posting in this forum, apologies. But a few recent thoughts I've had during gameplay:

The scandal system works, and is really cool when you get into making news stories and such during the editor. While using spin and surrogates to spin, I think it would be interesting if candidates would have a real chance to "respond to scandal," through speeches, barnstorming, or even ads (and maybe in debates.) Then a candidate could defend themself on a scandal, or other candidates could attack directly based on a scandal (or even defend the candidate.)

And debates, I think it would be interesting if the model was ever-slightly updated so that a candidate could perhaps choose an issue focus as well as a candidate to focus on. I think there could be a lot of complexity added into debates that would be cool but not necessarily vital, but I think adding some opportunity for issue focuses could be cool (and could bring an issue to the forefront, or give a candidate a chance to become an authority on it-- also would be good for candidates who are less likely to win to steer a conversation.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lizphairphreak said:

I keep posting in this forum, apologies. But a few recent thoughts I've had during gameplay:

The scandal system works, and is really cool when you get into making news stories and such during the editor. While using spin and surrogates to spin, I think it would be interesting if candidates would have a real chance to "respond to scandal," through speeches, barnstorming, or even ads (and maybe in debates.) Then a candidate could defend themself on a scandal, or other candidates could attack directly based on a scandal (or even defend the candidate.)

And debates, I think it would be interesting if the model was ever-slightly updated so that a candidate could perhaps choose an issue focus as well as a candidate to focus on. I think there could be a lot of complexity added into debates that would be cool but not necessarily vital, but I think adding some opportunity for issue focuses could be cool (and could bring an issue to the forefront, or give a candidate a chance to become an authority on it-- also would be good for candidates who are less likely to win to steer a conversation.)

Even have the rare chance the candidate hit with the scandal actually turns it around to their advantage and INCREASE their momentum (like Cleveland's taking full responsibility for his illegitimate child - the one Blaine was confident would be the scandal that would utterly sink Cleveland in the election and destroy his political career and legacy forever - and even giving such a huge endowment to the child that he was set for life, and then moving on to beat Blaine and win the election). I admit, it's extremely rare, but there should be even a tiny chance of it happening in-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Patine said:

Even have the rare chance the candidate hit with the scandal actually turns it around to their advantage and INCREASE their momentum (like Cleveland's taking full responsibility for his illegitimate child - the one Blaine was confident would be the scandal that would utterly sink Cleveland in the election and destroy his political career and legacy forever - and even giving such a huge endowment to the child that he was set for life, and then moving on to beat Blaine and win the election). I admit, it's extremely rare, but there should be even a tiny chance of it happening in-game.

Agreed! I was actually thinking of this. Have this as a chance, also have the chance to keep "backfired" ads running-- it can continue to decrease your momentum but there's a slim chance that you make it work (like Trump going full negative just seemed to boost his campaign,)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2018 at 12:47 PM, lizphairphreak said:

I keep posting in this forum, apologies. But a few recent thoughts I've had during gameplay:

The scandal system works, and is really cool when you get into making news stories and such during the editor. While using spin and surrogates to spin, I think it would be interesting if candidates would have a real chance to "respond to scandal," through speeches, barnstorming, or even ads (and maybe in debates.) Then a candidate could defend themself on a scandal, or other candidates could attack directly based on a scandal (or even defend the candidate.)

And debates, I think it would be interesting if the model was ever-slightly updated so that a candidate could perhaps choose an issue focus as well as a candidate to focus on. I think there could be a lot of complexity added into debates that would be cool but not necessarily vital, but I think adding some opportunity for issue focuses could be cool (and could bring an issue to the forefront, or give a candidate a chance to become an authority on it-- also would be good for candidates who are less likely to win to steer a conversation.)

Interesting idea re responding to scandal with a speech, say. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought: add "debate" as an option for the candidate offers screen, as a way to get third parties or lesser known candidates in primaries to request a debate from major opponents. This could be in addition to the pre-determined debates as a way to get around a percentage minimum but still get a debate boost (or for a candidate who has high debate skill to try to get some last minute amplification.) Maybe even have it tie into Issue Familiarity, so that a candidate who rejects the offer could potentially be hit as a debate dodger (depending on the profile of the candidate who requested the debate.) Not sure if any of this makes sense, just thinking about how Cuomo and Gillibrand have both been getting hit for dodging debates in NY and both eventually sat down for them with their GOP opponents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×