Jump to content
270soft Forum

Recommended Posts

i tried editing huckabee's stats in candidate editor and some reason he always starts off at 15% and then rapidly declines back to the 5% he had before. i obviously am not doing it properly.

I am in the final stages of finishing the new version which should model Huckabee's rise. However, it required a lot of heavy handed deterministic coding (events). It is hard for a game to simulate this crazy 2008 election, let alone the experts to guess! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

v. 1.3.0

-----------

-updated percentages w/ poll numbers

-balanced/changed candidate attributes

-added scripted events (VERY DETERMINISTIC)

-updated endorsers

-updated primary/caucus dates and # of delegates

-added debate dates

-removed most obsolete/unsupported candidates

-updated platforms and issue centers

-replaced Stem Cell issue w/ Business Tax

-added profile bonuses/maluses for certain primary/caucus victories (Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.)

-updated economic situation

-added fundraising bonuses for certain issue positions

-updated nation profiles of certain issues

-tweaked ad/activity costs and effects (more testing needed)

NOTE: TOTALLY REVAMPED the situation for Democratic and Republican candidates. Clinton's lead is now much more tenuous, and dark horse candidate Huckabee will have a powerful surge. Of course, there are great difficulties with trying to get the game engine go the way you want over such a large period of time. However, it will hopefully be accurate enough. Then again, the actual results are anyone's guess both ingame and in real life. For example, McCain may pull an upset in New Hampshire in real life due to Romney's weakening in Iowa, but as of now, cannot really do so in the game. As noted, the new events are very deterministic. May suck if you are playing the candidates that are artificially handicapped.

The December 1 scenario will come by the end of the week if all goes well. Getting things to run smoothly from October was harder than expected.

Merry Christmas! :)

-Jayavarman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the next version, the main task is the December 1 scenario, but I will also work on polishing the October scenario, incorporating the little suggestions and "nitpicks" that other players have found. I also hope to finally getting around to look at fantasy/third-party candidates. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and forth most, I'd like to thank you for your hard work, something that seems to be [ shamefully ] seldom done around here.

I'd love to have the new scenarios, I'll definitely give feedback as well. Istillbelieve831@aol.com

Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, let me just say thanks for the updates and the hard work.

That being said here are my nitpicks- The delegate counts for Michigan, Wyoming and South Carolina in the GOP primary should be cut in half as per the RNC ruling regarding punishment for moving the primary dates up.

I would also suggest (as crazy as it may seem) adding Chuck Norris as a Huckabee crusader. As of right now ole Huck only has Evangelical Christians and "New Crusader"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm havin' fun, but various stuff no particular order:

Oprah Winfrey a power of 1? What are you, crazy? :). I rather liked TheorySpark's solution of super-powerful, super-time-limited Oprah.

Given the headlines and crowds she's brought to the Obama campaign I think she's way underpowered in your scenario.

Any chance for additional state-specific endorsers in the early states? The Manchester Union-Leader matters a great deal in N.H. for Republicans and the Des Moines Register in Iowa for Democrats is a major one. Plus there's assorted senators/governors/congressman whose endorsement matters far more in those couple early states than anywhere else.

Why is Democratic governor Eliot Spitzer of New York endorsing Republicans? :)

200 grand a week for Obama seems rather low if he raises 30 million a quarter. Sure it goes up to 400 grand or so when momentum builds, but that still seems low.

Having random events on makes way too many issues purple way too fast. I'm a month in and six issues are considered very high. That said, I like the flavour from them being on. I suppose us scenario designers just need more control over random events and what they do.

I'm thinking you should firm up support in Iowa (make more committed?). It's 26 Nov and it's Obama 42 - Clinton 14 - Edwards 16. Obama could pull ahead, sure, by probably not by that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops. I thought I did cut the delegates for those states. Will check again.

"New Crusader" was a mistake. Deleted it now. As of now, my policy is to shy away from celebrity crusaders. How big is their effect, really? Aside from Bill Clinton, most voters say that celebrities do not influence them. Hell, John Kerry had all of Hollywood rooting for him and doing concerts and such. Did it win him the election? No.

In Concord on Friday, Mr. Huckabee addressed a packed news conference to introduce his new campaign chairman, Ed Rollins, the longtime Republican operative. Mr. Norris stood silently off to the side, and it was unclear why he was there at all, except to sign autographs for a few reporters afterward. When asked what he felt he added to the Huckabee campaign, Mr. Norris said simply, "Nothing," before posing for a few more pictures and leaving.

It is also the issue of balance. The game has so many variables as it is. I am always wary of adding new influencers. However, I am ignorant of how much effect the Crusaders have within the game itself, so adding in candidates' various celebrity supporters is not ruled out.

As for endorsers, I will definitely look into adding those visible ones, though their effects are also again debated along the merits of Crusaders.

I will try and get the fundraising numbers up. It is definitely on my to-do list.

Random events are not totally balanced or fixed yet, though I do like some issues to be purple from the start, as they are indeed at the forefront of politics these days, such as healthcare and Iraq. Having continual events for them also allows candidates in the game to continually be able to give speeches about them, which also seems accurate.

Tinkering with the "committed" percentages was also on my to-do list. Did not get a chance to do so for the last version. Playing with percentages is always a dangerous tasking leading to mercurial and frustrating results.

My main thoughts right now are about candidates in the shadow like Edwards and McCain. Are they more powerful than we think? The game (and real-life polls) cannot model the Iowa caucuses. For example, Edwards may be trailing Clinton and Obama in the "polls", but he may have be the second choice of a lot of the voters who are supporting third-tier candidates. Iowa rules force supporters who fail to reach 15% for a candidate to switch to another. This was how Edwards pulled an astonishing second place in 2004. And Kerry had not been predicted to win, shooting from a third-tier candidate to win the nomination overnight.

Also, for the Democratic Iowa caucus, percentages won has nothing to do with actual voter support, but delegate wins!

Then, for New Hampshire, will independents decide to vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After tinkering with the committed numbers, I actually think the large swings have more to do with the large number of undecideds. There is not much that can be done with that, and no one really knows who they belong to till the vote. The game however does not follow that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent it guys. I will hopefully have a new version soon. This Christmas business is really taking up my time. :wacko:

McCain is too underpowered in this scenario as well as other flaws that really irk me. And of course, everything is a conjecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as well as other flaws that really irk me.

Heh. Compare the amount of time I've spent on 1968 against the TheorySpark scenarios. Don't get me wrong I put a lot of work into the official scenarios, but 1968 is my baby (collaborative as it might be :) and—bugs aside—I've put huge amounts of time into it.

Anyway, I know where you're coming from :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sent it guys. I will hopefully have a new version soon. This Christmas business is really taking up my time. :wacko:

McCain is too underpowered in this scenario as well as other flaws that really irk me. And of course, everything is a conjecture.

I don't know why the current version isn't working for me, but I did finally manage to win the nomination as Huckabee in v1.2.4, and with McCain 1.2.4 also seems pretty well balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

v. 2.0.0

-----------

-Added new Gold December scenario

-made McCain more competitive

NOTE: My least polished release with not much balance testing; just felt like releasing a version where McCain could pull an upset in New Hampshire. Hopefully, I will release a more polished version with my pending to-do-list of changes by the end of the week, but New Years celebrations may stop that. If so, will probably wait for Iowa and New Hampshire to vote. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts,

- It seems like everyone plunges into negative momentum the first turn in the primaries.

- I think you should add more VP candidates. I'd be more then willing to help you with this, just ask.

- What happened to the undecided vote? It's at 0.8% in my games. I think it should at least be at around 10-15% representing most moderates and centrists whom haven't decided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My thoughts,

- It seems like everyone plunges into negative momentum the first turn in the primaries.

- I think you should add more VP candidates. I'd be more then willing to help you with this, just ask.

- What happened to the undecided vote? It's at 0.8% in my games. I think it should at least be at around 10-15% representing most moderates and centrists whom haven't decided.

-The fall in momentum is meant to mimic the stagnant Republican field until Huckabee suddenly burst into the scene.

-What is your suggestion for VPs?

-The undecided vote you are talking about I am assuming is for the general election. The problem with the undecideds in the game is that they can cause utterly outrageous swings where a candidate can win all of them resulting in lopsided and unrealistic results. Since the game allows for enough swings through leaning voters, undecideds are kept to a minimum in the general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I personally play-tested the scenario, and one of the first gameplay changes as ElectricMonk had noted will be fundraising. I will try to make fundraising easier and more bountiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh. Compare the amount of time I've spent on 1968 against the TheorySpark scenarios. Don't get me wrong I put a lot of work into the official scenarios, but 1968 is my baby (collaborative as it might be :) and—bugs aside—I've put huge amounts of time into it.

Anyway, I know where you're coming from :).

hug.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, its a good scenario. i was rudy and ended up going head to head with mccain after he won south carolina, rather than new hampshire (which i took). on super tuesday he won the states i didnt, like zona, minnesota, WV, OK, MS, NM, etc.

The Huckabee rise wasn't as dramatic as it was in the last scenario, when he took most of the country by mid december. although i was playing the dec 1 one. . so the other may be that way.

one VP suggestion is Mark Sanford of SC. He is rumored to be Giuliani's top choice for VP if he is nominated. I added him manually, so this is a suggestion for future releases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mccain after he won south carolina, rather than new hampshire (which i took)

Problem is that the game can suddenly give all of a state's undecideds on primary night which can be as much as 20% to a distant third/fourth place candidate like McCain (polling less than 10%) making them the winner. Realistic? I am not sure. :wacko:

A sorta quick fix...

v. 2.0.1

-----------

-changed general election percentages to hopefully make games more competitive after official engine and user scenario were changed

-fundraising now easier and more bountiful (should now be easy for a top tier candidate to raise $2+ million a week if they put time into it)

-developing campaign easier on the health, but harder on the wallet

-tried to weaken Romney a little bit; heavy primary balancing will come later, though main problems have to do with the game itself

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...