Jump to content
270soft Forum

Official 2020 Scenario Weirdness


lizphairphreak
 Share

Recommended Posts

Apologies if this is the wrong forum board, but since it's more an accounting of weird issues in the new 2020 scenario, I thought it would fit here and then others could add too.

I played through most of the primaries yesterday, playing as Gillibrand.

Started the game at the earliest available point (I think June 1st?) with IRL candidates declared as well as Biden on undecided. I had Trump and Weld declared, with Romney, Haley, Kasich, and one other (apologies, I forget) on Not Seeking. First, I noticed Gillibrand only had $3mil on hand even though she entered the race IRL with over 10mil I think. Small thing, easy fix, just a note. Also, I had "very bad" relations with Booker (Gillibrand and Booker are very close in real life) and Weld (just seems odd.)

I'll paste the whole arc of the campaign (so far) in the following message, if it is helpful. But here are big things I noticed.

My overall thoughts:
1) Very high number of Undecideds that made polling nearly useless, or allowed for absolutely wild and unrealistic shifts seemingly out of nowhere.
2) Odd to have non-aggression pacts before the game begins, and the choices were weird too.
3) Time in between turns was irrationally long. I was okay with this early, with so many candidates. However the processing time got longer as time went on, even as the field narrowed a lot. I do like the auto-saving, though. Just wish it wasn't such a wait.
4) Biden never put himself on the ballot in most states, which was very very odd. And I think this somehow led to me being able to take the frontrunner status much more easily than it should've.
5) The amount of CPU candidates that "were not on the campaign trail" super often was very odd. Particularly when they were frontrunners or at least well-funded.
6) Not Seeking candidates getting endorsements was odd, though it is pretty cool if this is intentional and can be worked in better.
7) For most endorsers, I couldn't see which specific issue they were focused on-- I'd just see "preferred platform." I thought this meant general, but then one endorser wouldn't endorse me even though they listed CL (which I was, overall) and I'm not sure which issue that was. Would be helpful for this to be easily seen / accessible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An odd thing from the beginning: for some reason, Gillibrand had a non-aggression pact with Romney. Not sure why that would be. Also, Romney started getting a ton of endorsements-- is that supposed to happen for a Not Seeking candidate? I kind of like it if so, it makes sense when considering "Draft x candidate" PACs. But it was odd. What made it more odd: Romney then withdrew by the end of the week, as did Kasich, Haley, and the other. So it was down to just Trump and Weld.

Biden jumped in quickly, I think after the first debate. That felt right in context of the parameters I set. He was then the frontrunner and led in most states aside from home states and Iowa and NH (competitive.) That also felt right.

Then things started getting a bit odd. I spent a lot of time building up organization, and campaigning in NY, CA, and TX. Within just a few weeks, I was the frontrunner in CA and TX, despite O'Rourke/Castro and Harris being in the race, and O'Rourke leading in Iowa (and NC?) Seeing these returns, I drilled down on rallying CA and TX while building up organization and footsoldiers in other big delegate states, as well as pushing Issue Familiarity and Debate Prep. Note that throughout most of this, the Undecided vote stayed at around 60% for all of the polling. That felt unrealistic.

Following a debate where I focused on Warren, I took the lead in Massachusetts-- and it was sizable. This felt unrealistic.

And then, suddenly, I was leading in almost every single state (around November) although I wasn't yet the "frontrunner" (that was still Biden.) This felt wildly false, as I had genuinely traveled to only around 10 states and didn't air any ads. Additionally, most of the candidates around then started getting hit with the "Not on the campaign trail" negative stories almost every week. This included Sanders and Biden who started in the front. O'Rourke didn't get hit with these, but then went way down in the polls despite campaigning. It was odd, and unearned for me.

Now, a new dynamic came forward: Me as the frontrunner, with Klobuchar in second and Booker following her. They both came out of nowhere, especially considering I had leads in both of their home states. I was not even in the top 5 in Iowa or New Hampshire. And then I noticed that polling in Nevada and Washington was glitchy-- it had around 6 candidates at 14.3 and the rest at 0 in both states, which was odd. I then couldn't get above a percent in IA, which felt weird considering my leads elsewhere and my rally success. Also, Booker took the lead in California and Texas out of nowhere. Not only that, but I dropped around 15% in both out of nowhere (no scandals, gaffes, anything.)

Iowa came around, and I ended up getting 3rd place but no delegates. Same with New Hampshire. Klobuchar won both. All but me, Klobuchar, Booker, and Castro (weird?) dropped out after Iowa, and the polls didn't drastically change. I came in third in NV which Booker won (no delegates) and then in 2nd in SC (also to Booker, and finally I got delegates.) 

Weirdly, though, these victories only powered Klobuchar, who took leads through parts of the midwest and South. Booker didn't really get a boost. But also weirdly: I didn't see a massive polling loss in most states. I remained the frontrunner despite losing 4 primaries.

Then my luck changed and I swept multiple states. But Booker won CA and TX (I got 0 delegates in CA, which seemed very odd.) I also won MN, but Klobuchar stayed in-- and I won by a wide margin. I then continued winning most states, or coming in at close second (or even ties) with Klobuchar. Booker fizzled out, and randomly withdrew later on. Castro withdrew in April, which felt late.

I had very solid leads in remaining states, and carried NY easily. Klobuchar essentially had no path to the nomination after I took Pennsylvania by a huge margin, but she didn't drop out. I ended up stopping here last night, but was beginning to shift to GE (as was the Trump campaign; surrogates began targeting me specifically.) Because of the long processing times, I stopped playing to head to bed, but plan on playing through the GE. I'm wondering if Klobuchar will fight to the convention and try to win Booker's delegates. I forget the numbers atm, but I think that could potentially work for her, but as it stands now there's no path for her to win the nomination even if she were to sweep the few remaining states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Started the game at the earliest available point (I think June 1st?) with IRL candidates declared as well as Biden on undecided."

I considered removing these early start dates for the time being, but included them because debates start that early. The June start date is very early for the game engine, and my focus right now is on the later start date (Nov. 3rd, 2019), FYI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Time in between turns was irrationally long. I was okay with this early, with so many candidates. However the processing time got longer as time went on, even as the field narrowed a lot. I do like the auto-saving, though. Just wish it wasn't such a wait."

Due to autosaving. Turn autosave off. This is due to the polling data, which will change with the new polling system and should be much quicker. New polling system goal is implement for Spring 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For most endorsers, I couldn't see which specific issue they were focused on-- I'd just see "preferred platform." I thought this meant general, but then one endorser wouldn't endorse me even though they listed CL (which I was, overall) and I'm not sure which issue that was. Would be helpful for this to be easily seen / accessible."

Yes, 'preferred platform' means they are endorsing on the overall platform. Sounds like it might be a bug - noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"suddenly, I was leading in almost every single state (around November) although I wasn't yet the "frontrunner" (that was still Biden.) This felt wildly false, as I had genuinely traveled to only around 10 states and didn't air any ads."

Did you do well in the debates? What was your national press like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Anthony, thanks so much for responding to all of this! I hope alerting you to some of these is helpful since they do seem like bugs or glitches. I also think playing as a (in this game, at least) lower-tier candidate may have made me see some of these things that might not come up with frontrunners or higher polling candidates.

31 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

"suddenly, I was leading in almost every single state (around November) although I wasn't yet the "frontrunner" (that was still Biden.) This felt wildly false, as I had genuinely traveled to only around 10 states and didn't air any ads."

Did you do well in the debates? What was your national press like?

This reminded me-- totally forgot about Debating oddness. So I did well in the debates, and eventually started triumphing (my strategy is often to drill debating and issues to the max so this is common for my candidates) but there was an odd thing that happened. At one point I shifted from boasting to targeting Warren, and after that I couldn't switch back to boasting. I could solely attack others. It was strange.

And then just another note-- Weld spiraled wildly out of control and performed terribly. He is kind of a wildcard, but I don't really anticipate that happening in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"At one point I shifted from boasting to targeting Warren, and after that I couldn't switch back to boasting. I could solely attack others.At one point I shifted from boasting to targeting Warren, and after that I couldn't switch back to boasting. I could solely attack others."

Sounds like a bug - noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, admin_270 said:

@CamelN

The blog and the redownload page list the most recent version.

https://270soft.com/blog

I would recommend not starting from the earliest start points at this point (start at Nov. 3rd, 2019 instead), and I might remove it in the next version.

I appreciate the response. I will follow that advice. I only prefer the earlier start date as it gives me sufficient time to set my platform/strategy, and makes it easier for lesser known candidates to have a chance. For now, I can play on the later start date. Much appreciated. 

 

Also, there are two June 2019 start dates; not sure if one would work better than the other, but I thought I would let you now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bug with candidates stuck at 14.3% or having a low number of votes (1-8) in low turnout states has been a bug for a while caused by set turnouts. Seems like it can only be fixed by eliminating set turnouts in the editor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something weird happening in Nevada.

I first began noticing it happening 100% of the time when I played @vcczar's 2020 campaign -- but now I see it happening in the official 2020 scenario as well.

Somewhere between January and February (before Nevada votes) every single candidate in Nevada will be exactly tied, all the way down to a tenth of a percent.  Every other state could already be a blowout, but Nevada will be a twenty-way tie.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

There's something weird happening in Nevada.

I first began noticing it happening 100% of the time when I played @vcczar's 2020 campaign -- but now I see it happening in the official 2020 scenario as well.

Somewhere between January and February (before Nevada votes) every single candidate in Nevada will be exactly tied, all the way down to a tenth of a percent.  Every other state could already be a blowout, but Nevada will be a twenty-way tie.  

 

Same issue as the one I mentioned above.

On 3/23/2019 at 1:03 AM, SirLagsalott said:

The bug with candidates stuck at 14.3% or having a low number of votes (1-8) in low turnout states has been a bug for a while caused by set turnouts. Seems like it can only be fixed by eliminating set turnouts in the editor. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/23/2019 at 12:03 AM, SirLagsalott said:

The bug with candidates stuck at 14.3% or having a low number of votes (1-8) in low turnout states has been a bug for a while caused by set turnouts. Seems like it can only be fixed by eliminating set turnouts in the editor. 

How does one do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Caprice said:

How does one do that?

In the parties menu, go to primaries, and at each primary remove the number saying the turnout, leaving that box blank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem I have with this scenario is that the undecided vote continues to increase every week to the point where by the time the primaries come along it is like 60%+ in every state, which is way unrealistic and makes it basically unplayable because when the primaries actually one along the polls are way wrong. In the matter of a week, Beto went from being like 5th in the polls to being the front runner by 5 points so he suddenly took every state on Super tuesday. 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...