Jump to content
270soft Forum

thr33

Members
  • Content Count

    179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About thr33

  • Rank
    Political Guru

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NY
  • Interests
    Politics (left-wing economically ; centrist socially ; right-wing on immigration ; non-interventionist), Math & Statistics, Economics, Basketball, Golf

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Happy Thanksgiving! Thanks for all of the wonderful games!
  2. (EDIT: never mind, deleted; please ignore)
  3. Absent a recession: Biden: 30% (see poll below, from highly rated NYT/Siena) Warren: 70% Sanders: >85% (would almost certainly garner a third party challenger like Bloomberg who would split the center-left vote) Buttigieg: >85% (very likely black turnout/margins drop) If there is a recession, Trump's odds are close to 0%.
  4. Ah okay, makes sense. Regarding the primaries, I had an interesting discussion a couple weeks ago. Maybe it's related to this. So, in primaries that are not true 'open' contests, candidates can receive non-ideological support: (1) The frontrunner receives an institutional bonus, and receives votes from blocs that prefer a safe choice. (2) The primary underdog (mostly in two-way races) receives an opposition bonus, and receives protest votes. Votes in both of these classes generally diminish when you get to three or more legitimate candidates (perhaps because more peopl
  5. I actually quite like that option. Particularly since it makes it easy to deal with data. When looking at other states, there's no way of determining total turnout unless a county/state indicates it. A lot of places don't report undervotes (which are key data IMO).
  6. Very cool, sorry for the redundant question. I usually play on a Mac, will probably install and mess around on my PC today. Seems like this is a real gamechanger. So if someone plays well, negative campaigning (planting scandals, and negative ads) can lower favorability and turnout it seems. As you said above, this will play naturally into voting blocs, where there are certain groups who may not vote for the other major party, but may stay home (or vote third/minor).
  7. Anthony, quick question on the bolded: Is 'not voting' in the rankings for eligible voters? I'm not sure what would trigger that behavior. Maybe having every candidate remaining below a certain threshold (say 2/10)? Or maybe you could have a hidden 'nobody' favorability. Could make the turnout game more variable/interesting.
  8. @Patine This BBC article lists some potential 2048 issues. It includes descriptions, but here are the 10 they laid out: • GENETIC MODIFICATION OF HUMANS • A MORE AGED POPULATION THAN EVER BEFORE • LOST CITIES • THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL MEDIA • NEW GEOPOLITICAL TENSIONS • SAFE CAR TRAVEL • DWINDLING RESOURCES • SETTLING OTHER WORLDS • BOOSTED BRAINPOWER • AI’S DOMINANCE IN OUR LIVES
  9. @admin_270 Just wondering, did you ever figure out what was causing this to happen? Will the fix be ready for inclusion in the October 15 update?
  10. thr33

    Moving Forward

    I agree. I'm not a high volume poster, but I've tried to avoid the main board as it has been increasingly full of heated political debates - far too much anger and vitriol for me. I've been busy though so it's worked out. I'm really looking forward to the 10/15 favorability update, I think I'll be back to my normal posting once it's released. Pretty excited about the possibilities for the gameplay engine.
  11. Makes sense. Would you move it to a larger scale (I think org. strength currently maxes at 5 points, so maybe 10)? I ask this because you'd probably want some separation between the majority party, the minority party, and third parties. Though maybe it's unnecessary, and with a quick tweak of org strength value the solid/leaning/undecided tier system would work fine.
  12. Would it be possible to add a setting for state party infrastructure attribute (maybe an irl representation of how strong parties are at the state level) alongside campaign infrastructure? Third party candidates who choose to specialize could lower a state's party infrastructure in their pet state(s) (i.e. McMullin, or a regional candidate like Thurmond or Wallace). Either visible or hidden. Not sure if this exists already under the hood, or if it doesn't, how hard it would be to implement (especially given how org. strength and foot soldiers interact with momentum; in reality a candidate
  13. That's partly what I figured. The AI has gotten really good in primaries, and reacts very well to user state infrastructure and foot soldiers, makes playing as an underdog really difficult. I know that voter blocs/demographics are possibly planned for way down the line, but I wonder how much that could help? I guess maybe not all that much, since it still boils down to each state having definite and persuadable voters. Since a lot of the AI models real life I'd say, I guess the question is, what happens if a candidate puts a ton of money into a state that can't be won? I mean you don
  14. Oof. I haven't designed scenarios before and I know Anthony said it might be an AI behavior thing that could be fixed, but a few questions: (1) Do you get the same unrealistic results if you turn third parties off (other than the simulation party)? Might be an issue with how they're implemented or the goals or something. (2) Did you have primaries on? Maybe there's an issue with candidates building up infrastructure and foot soldiers in the primaries in certain states in one party, while in the other party those states don't matter. (3) Was there any indication this would happen
  15. I haven't been in the market for a laptop for a few years (though I probably will be soon) so I don't have a particular laptop rec, but here are a couple good sites for deals: https://slickdeals.net/computer-deals/?src=catnav_computers https://www.overclock.net/forum/327-online-deals/ Best of luck
×
×
  • Create New...