Jump to content
270soft Forum
Roman313

Refund for President Election Game

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 
May I get a refund? I purchased the game using my PayPal with this email address. It says that you offer a full refund if I am unhappy with the game. I am not happy with the game.
 
Thank You,
 
Roman Zapotny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roman313 said:

Hello,

 
May I get a refund? I purchased the game using my PayPal with this email address. It says that you offer a full refund if I am unhappy with the game. I am not happy with the game.
 
Thank You,
 
Roman Zapotny

Out of curiosity, what are your major complaints?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Out of curiosity, what are your major complaints?

Probably the same reasons I have no intention of continuing my subscription. The game is currently unplayable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Out of curiosity, what are your major complaints?

 

1 hour ago, Herbert Hoover said:

Probably the same reasons I have no intention of continuing my subscription. The game is currently unplayable.

I will admit, I tend to more often play, think of custom scenarios in light of by default, and feel more intuitively comfortable, with the older TheorySpark iterations of their game lines at this time, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Herbert Hoover said:

Probably the same reasons I have no intention of continuing my subscription. The game is currently unplayable.

Why do you think it’s unplayable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Why do you think it’s unplayable?

The dogpiling and incredibly high undecided % makes the game completely unpredictable with a random person winning the primary every single time for the last few versions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the frontrunner always gets under half a percentage point in Iowa despite leading nationally. It's just crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Why do you think it’s unplayable?

Obviously I don't speak for him, but I also find the game unplayable at the moment for the 2020 scenario. I have found that by the time Iowa rolls around the amount of undecided voters is usually way beyond 50% and screws up all the polling and results. And also, if only one candidate gets delegates because they were the only one to get 15%, it gives them huge momentum and no one else gets much even if they were only 1% less, so that carries to the next states to the point where it becomes impossible to beat them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MysteryKnight said:

Obviously I don't speak for him, but I also find the game unplayable at the moment for the 2020 scenario. I have found that by the time Iowa rolls around the amount of undecided voters is usually way beyond 50% and screws up all the polling and results. And also, if only one candidate gets delegates because they were the only one to get 15%, it gives them huge momentum and no one else gets much even if they were only 1% less, so that carries to the next states to the point where it becomes impossible to beat them. 

Right here. 

It doesn't help that fringe candidate spend every waking moment in Iowa and New Hampshire. It means that 9/10 the primary is won by an Andrew Yang or John Delaney or the like. I've yet to see anyone in the fall debate outside of Castro win the nomination, and he only won because he really just focuses Iowa/New Hampshire due to his polling being so low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

And the frontrunner always gets under half a percentage point in Iowa despite leading nationally. It's just crazy.

I find that this causes someone random to win Iowa and then because winning Iowa gets such a big boost then end up doing incredibly well in New Hampshire as well, which also gives such a big boost.

Share this post


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

Right here. 

It doesn't help that fringe candidate spend every waking moment in Iowa and New Hampshire. It means that 9/10 the primary is won by an Andrew Yang or John Delaney or the like. I've yet to see anyone in the fall debate outside of Castro win the nomination, and he only won because he really just focuses Iowa/New Hampshire due to his polling being so low.

I always see Castro or Mayor Pete win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem here is more to do with unprecedented numbers of candidates on the Democratic side, so it's a specific situation, which leads to dog-piling.

The solution seems pretty obvious - significantly limit the effect low-polling candidates can have in any given region. The problem is how to balance this so low-polling candidates have a chance to make an impact.

I should say that high %s of undecideds going into the early primaries with a large field is fairly realistic.

This is at the top of the list of things to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I think the problem here is more to do with unprecedented numbers of candidates on the Democratic side, so it's a specific situation, which leads to dog-piling.

The solution seems pretty obvious - significantly limit the effect low-polling candidates can have in any given region. The problem is how to balance this so low-polling candidates have a chance to make an impact.

I should say that high %s of undecideds going into the early primaries with a large field is fairly realistic.

This is at the top of the list of things to do.

I've been playing hands-off with ONLY the top five candidates on (Biden, Bernie, Warren, Kamala, Buttigieg).  With the November start date.

You still see undecideds at higher than 50% by the time you reach Iowa.

Despite maintaining his lead nationally, I've yet to see Biden actually win a single state.

90% of the time, Buttigieg has won the nomination.  One time Buttigieg and Sanders were so close that it became a contested convention and Sanders got the nom despite Buttigieg leading, but every other time it's been Buttigieg.  Most times it's not even close, with one person (Buttigieg) winning 95% of the states.  A few times, he's won 100% of them.

While it's logical to think the problem is too many candidates...that doesn't actually appear to be the case.

I have to agree that while it's mildly fun to spacebar through the game and see what happens, it would be impossible to play in its current state as an actual strategic game.
 

Share this post


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

I've been playing hands-off with ONLY the top five candidates on (Biden, Bernie, Warren, Kamala, Buttigieg).  With the November start date.

You still see undecideds at higher than 50% by the time you reach Iowa.

Despite maintaining his lead nationally, I've yet to see Biden actually win a single state.

90% of the time, Buttigieg has won the nomination.  One time Buttigieg and Sanders were so close that it became a contested convention and Sanders got the nom despite Buttigieg leading, but every other time it's been Buttigieg.  Most times it's not even close, with one person (Buttigieg) winning 95% of the states.  A few times, he's won 100% of them.

While it's logical to think the problem is too many candidates...that doesn't actually appear to be the case.

I have to agree that while it's mildly fun to spacebar through the game and see what happens, it would be impossible to play in its current state as an actual strategic game.
 

I've seen this too. It used to be O'Rourke winning every time and now it's Buttigieg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I've been playing hands-off with ONLY the top five candidates on (Biden, Bernie, Warren, Kamala, Buttigieg).  With the November start date.

You still see undecideds at higher than 50% by the time you reach Iowa.

Despite maintaining his lead nationally, I've yet to see Biden actually win a single state.

90% of the time, Buttigieg has won the nomination.  One time Buttigieg and Sanders were so close that it became a contested convention and Sanders got the nom despite Buttigieg leading, but every other time it's been Buttigieg.  Most times it's not even close, with one person (Buttigieg) winning 95% of the states.  A few times, he's won 100% of them.

While it's logical to think the problem is too many candidates...that doesn't actually appear to be the case.

I have to agree that while it's mildly fun to spacebar through the game and see what happens, it would be impossible to play in its current state as an actual strategic game.
 

It's almost always him even when you have twice the amount of candidates as well. I almost exclusively watch the game to see what happens and that's not even fun with 2020 anymore because it's always Buttigieg vs Trump(Trump is very much expected but still.) and Trump almost always switches from Pence to Haley for his running mate. 

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...

×
×
  • Create New...