Jump to content
270soft Forum

Feature You'd Most Like to See


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's a pretty cool idea! It would be fun connecting with other campaigners for a game.

Certainly, but it is important to make sure the candidates all have reasonable shot at the money... at least some shot... Romney should have the edge...but it shouldn't be impossible for other candida

Good idea! Maybe you could also throw in Vice Presidential Interviews... you how much damage those did to Sarah Palin in 2008... I'd also like to see some ads on the Veeps. I know the McCain campaig

Posted Images

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but a realisitc feature is that an incumbant president still has presidential duties, and must, from time to time (probably determined randomly in the game given the limits of the engine) leave the country, during which time they cannot barnstorm or make a policy speech. Just an idea to add some realism, and a balancing feature for the usual advantage of an incumbant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, also incumbents in real life have different abilities than challengers (can give weekly address, and so on). Noted.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but a realisitc feature is that an incumbant president still has presidential duties, and must, from time to time (probably determined randomly in the game given the limits of the engine) leave the country, during which time they cannot barnstorm or make a policy speech. Just an idea to add some realism, and a balancing feature for the usual advantage of an incumbant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that a President who was campaigning all the time to the exclusion of governance would be heavily criticized for it. Also, I think I've heard that part of the problem with Dukakis' 1988 campaign was that he had to divide his attention between being the incumbent governor of Massachusetts and his campaign for President, and people thought he balanced those two badly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that a President who was campaigning all the time to the exclusion of governance would be heavily criticized for it. Also, I think I've heard that part of the problem with Dukakis' 1988 campaign was that he had to divide his attention between being the incumbent governor of Massachusetts and his campaign for President, and people thought he balanced those two badly.

So maybe candidates could have a 'type'. If they are a 'President' (ie. incumbent), they'll have the least time to campaign. If they're a 'Governor', they'll have less time than a 'Senator' or a 'Rep' would. *Shrug*

Right now though, the feature I'd most like to see is working preferences. PM4E Aus has been without them for far too long.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I'm just thinking about the incredible volatility that we've seen in the last two Republican cycles, and wondering if there's any way to incorporate that. A straw poll made Tim Pawlenty (mistakenly) drop out of the race. Rick Perry soared to the top upon his entry, then had one bad debate and cratered. Herman Cain, meanwhile, went from ~5% to a healthy-sized lead, seemingly overnight, again because he had one good debate performance. Maybe the debates should be made to matter more? Maybe in multi-candidate races the volatility factor should be higher? I'm not exactly sure how to do this right, but it strikes me that it's worth thinking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I once ecited a 2011 eleven scenerio so thet there was no ways a minority govermant could be formed. It said it was going to have another election but it did not. I would like to get to have multiple elections where you have to get reelected and the computer decides how well you did!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks mahaadoxyz and Alfonzo - yes.

Anthony Burgoyne

Lead Designer

270soft.com - TheorySpark

Where gaming gets political!

So maybe candidates could have a 'type'. If they are a 'President' (ie. incumbent), they'll have the least time to campaign. If they're a 'Governor', they'll have less time than a 'Senator' or a 'Rep' would. *Shrug*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, I think it has to do with how familiar voters are with candidates. So, they hear about Perry, say, and get excited. Then, they actually see him in the debates, and are disappointed. So, Perry didn't have time to move voters into the 'committed' column, we could say ... his support was large was superficial.

Anthony Burgoyne

Lead Designer

270soft.com - TheorySpark

Where gaming gets political!

You know, I'm just thinking about the incredible volatility that we've seen in the last two Republican cycles, and wondering if there's any way to incorporate that. A straw poll made Tim Pawlenty (mistakenly) drop out of the race. Rick Perry soared to the top upon his entry, then had one bad debate and cratered. Herman Cain, meanwhile, went from ~5% to a healthy-sized lead, seemingly overnight, again because he had one good debate performance. Maybe the debates should be made to matter more? Maybe in multi-candidate races the volatility factor should be higher? I'm not exactly sure how to do this right, but it strikes me that it's worth thinking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks LordBeckett for the feedback - this would be a large feature to add, but it's noted.

Anthony Burgoyne

Lead Designer

270soft.com - TheorySpark

Where gaming gets political!

I once ecited a 2011 eleven scenerio so thet there was no ways a minority govermant could be formed. It said it was going to have another election but it did not. I would like to get to have multiple elections where you have to get reelected and the computer decides how well you did!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the election results come in slowly, but in a bulk. If that makes any sense. Rather than taking 20 seconds to report 50,000 to 100,000 votes. Have the results update in one shot rather than them tick up, it's more realistic.

Also, i'm not sure how complicated this could be without changing the system. But in the html makeup of the states, maybe enter the voter registration of each party so the results accurately represent the state. I think this can prevent hardcore blue & red states from flipping in the general.

For example, New York, 50D, 30I, 25R.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the election results come in slowly, but in a bulk. If that makes any sense. Rather than taking 20 seconds to report 50,000 to 100,000 votes. Have the results update in one shot rather than them tick up, it's more realistic.

Also, i'm not sure how complicated this could be without changing the system. But in the html makeup of the states, maybe enter the voter registration of each party so the results accurately represent the state. I think this can prevent hardcore blue & red states from flipping in the general.

For example, New York, 50D, 30I, 25R.

A good idea for the MODERN US, but I like to also do 1800's elections, before they had party registration, and sometimes foreign presidential elections, who have different party recruitment systems, and I know a few other scenario makers do too. Plus, some states (gubernatorial elections are popular too) don't have official party registration, like Nebraska or Washington. A neat idea, but serves yet another obstacle in the engine to work around for those of us who do an expansive list of scenarios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the election results come in slowly, but in a bulk. If that makes any sense. Rather than taking 20 seconds to report 50,000 to 100,000 votes. Have the results update in one shot rather than them tick up, it's more realistic.

Also, i'm not sure how complicated this could be without changing the system. But in the html makeup of the states, maybe enter the voter registration of each party so the results accurately represent the state. I think this can prevent hardcore blue & red states from flipping in the general.

For example, New York, 50D, 30I, 25R.

You forgot about unregistereds. A state could be like {50,30,25},20, which would mean 50% of registered voters are D, 30% are I, 25% are R, and 20% aren't even registered. Barnstorming, ads and positive momentum would get unregistered voters to register and maybe join your party. Would make things even more realistic.

@Patine

It could be done so that you could easily turn off party registration, just like in previous PM4E games you could turn on/off preferences.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot about unregistereds. A state could be like {50,30,25},20, which would mean 50% of registered voters are D, 30% are I, 25% are R, and 20% aren't even registered. Barnstorming, ads and positive momentum would get unregistered voters to register and maybe join your party. Would make things even more realistic.

@Patine

It could be done so that you could easily turn off party registration, just like in previous PM4E games you could turn on/off preferences.

Voter registation in the game would be awesome. I would love to see more emphasis on the GOTV, option wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. That would be awesome! Also, you might want to add a concede button during the election night.

I would like to see the election results come in slowly, but in a bulk. If that makes any sense. Rather than taking 20 seconds to report 50,000 to 100,000 votes. Have the results update in one shot rather than them tick up, it's more realistic.

Also, i'm not sure how complicated this could be without changing the system. But in the html makeup of the states, maybe enter the voter registration of each party so the results accurately represent the state. I think this can prevent hardcore blue & red states from flipping in the general.

For example, New York, 50D, 30I, 25R.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a for the prez4ever 2012 game, there should be Internet Ads. Heck, that's how Howie Dean almost won in 2004...

Also, I think the incumbent president (Obama) should have the following...

1.) Fewer CPs (due to his duties as President restricting him)

2.) Quicker stamina recovery (heck, he has Camp David, the White House, and Air Force One!)

Maybe there could be Money Bombs that you could launch. Basically a mass fundraiser nationwide... Ron Paul is the beast at doing those.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, money bombs are an interesting form of fundraising because they also tend to generate more publicity ...

I think a for the prez4ever 2012 game, there should be Internet Ads. Heck, that's how Howie Dean almost won in 2004...

Also, I think the incumbent president (Obama) should have the following...

1.) Fewer CPs (due to his duties as President restricting him)

2.) Quicker stamina recovery (heck, he has Camp David, the White House, and Air Force One!)

Maybe there could be Money Bombs that you could launch. Basically a mass fundraiser nationwide... Ron Paul is the beast at doing those.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you add a Corporate, Labor, PAC/SuperPAC fundraising buttons to the game? Corporate Money is pretty influential today in the United States. There also should be an option for computers to not use Corporate, Labor, PAC/SuperPAC depending on if they pledge not take money during the campaign. Remember 94% of elections are decided by the one who raises the most $

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you add a Corporate, Labor, PAC/SuperPAC fundraising buttons to the game? Corporate Money is pretty influential today in the United States. There also should be an option for computers to not use Corporate, Labor, PAC/SuperPAC depending on if they pledge not take money during the campaign. Remember 94% of elections are decided by the one who raises the most $

Perhaps another trait candidates should have is "Corporate Friendship". The higher that number, the more money they get from Corporate and PAC fundinding or whatever.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps another trait candidates should have is "Corporate Friendship". The higher that number, the more money they get from Corporate and PAC fundinding or whatever.

Corporate Friendship 1-5

Union Friendship 1-5

PAC Friendship 1-5

SUPERPAC Friendship 1-5

Money/Influence Resistance 1-5

Corporate Friendship could depend on part on the candidate's view on Corporate taxes, but Corporations should also try to buy ALL candidates. Union Friendship could depend on part one the candidate's view on Unions. PAC Friendship and SUPERPAC Friendship could depend on a certain issue or have standard ideology like center-left or right. If the Money/Influence Resistance is 5, the candidate would reject all Friendship money. If Money/Influence Resistance is 4, the candidate would reject the money from a friendship if they don't agree with their views. If Money/Influence Resistance is 3, the candidate wouldn't care where the money is coming from. IF Money/Influence Resistance is 2, the candidate would try to pander (ie change views) to all the friendship and would try to get money from all of them. IF Money/Influence Resistance is 1, the candidate would change views to match one friendship group and get millions of dollars from them.

Corporate Friendship and SUPERPAC Friendship should have 10s of millions to spend. Union Friendship and Pac Friendship should have significantly less.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here are some thoughts that occurred to me in the wake of last night's Cain-Gingrich debate. The dynamic there was, basically, that Gingrich had challenged the rest of the field, collectively, to having some one-on-one debates with him, and only Cain accepted, so they had a debate. Unlike standard primary debates, this was one in which they were each allowed to speak for long stretches of time at once, and to engage in back-and-forth with each other. So what I'm thinking is, maybe there should be a mechanism whereby a candidate can challenge another candidate to a one-on-one debate? That's mainly relevant only in the primary, since general elections are often one-on-one contests anyway.

Another thought I have is that perhaps it would be nice if debates could be on specific subjects. So the scenario creator, when constructing a debate, could put a handful of issues as the topic of that debate, or maybe just set it so that the two or three or four highest-profile issues at that moment are the topic. And when one candidate challenges another to a debate, they could declare the topic of that debate in advance. Ideally to make that work I think you'd want to have a somewhat more sophisticated way for candidates to construct the set of issues their campaign focuses on. In the '08 version, you get to have three issues as your "theme," but as best I can tell, because ads are what's really most important and because only ads about a candidate attribute, rather than about an issue, are particularly effective, you really have to make your theme candidate attributes. Maybe one way to solve this would be to have "issue knowledge" broken down into separate issue knowledge ratings for each issue? Then whenever you did the "practice issue knowledge" activity, you'd pick an issue. Presumably if this were the case it would need to take way fewer such practicings to get from minimum to maximum knowledge. Then maybe there would be something automatic where the issue you spoke about during barnstorming or whatever was picked taking your relative familiarity with each issue into account, perhaps in combination with issue profile. So in general, let's say, you'd be speaking about the things you wanted to talk about, the things you felt were your best issues, but if some event happened that rocketed an issue you weren't comfortable with to the top of the salience list, you'd have to talk about that, which would make you more likely to commit a gaffe. I dunno if that would be too hard to do, but it seems like it might be interesting.

Of course, I think you'd still want it to be possible for a debate to just be at-large, and not focus on any one issue or set of issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea! Maybe you could also throw in Vice Presidential Interviews... you how much damage those did to Sarah Palin in 2008...

I'd also like to see some ads on the Veeps. I know the McCain campaign ran ads focused primarily on Palin. So did the Kerry-Edwards Campaign in 2004, highlighting Edwards.

I also would like to see the VP candidate being able to increase their IF. It also ticked me off when I ended up with a VP with a IF of 1 or 2.

  • Upvote 5
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...