AMPU: The Big Red Button (1960 Playtest)

[MrPotatoTed]

8 minutes ago, themiddlepolitical said:

@MrPotatoTed With these results without the boost, I do wonder if platform boosts should be removed all together or simply capped at +1. 

Agree.  I'm also thinking the D6 roll at the end should maybe be D3, and the historical bias should be +3/+5 instead of +1/+2, maybe.  Would give more realistic outcomes, less left to just literal random luck.  

[themiddlepolitical]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

Agree.  I'm also thinking the D6 roll at the end should maybe be D3, and the historical bias should be +3/+5 instead of +1/+2, maybe.  Would give more realistic outcomes, less left to just literal random luck.  

Agreed! This would be a great fix. Needs to be more limited for sure. There is enough randomness with traits and events already. +3/+5 and D3 are much better as well. 

[themiddlepolitical]

Just now, themiddlepolitical said:

Agreed! This would be a great fix. Needs to be more limited for sure. There is enough randomness with traits and events already. +3/+5 and D3 are much better as well. 

I know it might be a bit back tracking but @Cal Maybe we should run another GE race with these settings, +1 or no platform bonus (whatever Ted decides) and +3/+5 and D3

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, themiddlepolitical said:

I know it might be a bit back tracking but @Cal Maybe we should run another GE race with these settings, +1 or no platform bonus (whatever Ted decides) and +3/+5 and D3

No need for Cal to do any extra work.  If he’s done with the presidential election tab, I should be able to run it with those new draft rules in place to see what that would look like.  (naturally, we’ll leave the outcome as it originally was, Bricker and his team earned their landslide victory and followed the rules that existed at the time, not going to take that from them.  Just adjusting how it goes in the future.)

[themiddlepolitical]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

No need for Cal to do any extra work.  If he’s done with the presidential election tab, I should be able to run it with those new draft rules in place to see what that would look like.  (naturally, we’ll leave the outcome as it originally was, Bricker and his team earned their landslide victory and followed the rules that existed at the time, not going to take that from them.  Just adjusting how it goes in the future.)

Sounds good! And yeah I agree keep the results, Would be great (and kinda needed) to test though.. Especially after @Arkansas Progressive first calculation already being way better. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Actually...as I take a closer look, Bricker got a +3 for this section in every state: " Give +1 to candidate with most enthusiastic personal base (unless more than 2 ideologies away from state's preferred ideology)"

But...that's only a +1, not a +3.  

@Cal Do you interpret that rule differently than I do?  Or should those "+3 to Bricker in every state" be corrected to just a +1 Bricker, as that's the max the rule allows (and no bonus at all for states that have a preferred ideology two spots or further from Bricker).

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

4 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Actually...as I take a closer look, Bricker got a +3 for this section in every state: " Give +1 to candidate with most enthusiastic personal base (unless more than 2 ideologies away from state's preferred ideology)"

But...that's only a +1, not a +3.  

@Cal Do you interpret that rule differently than I do?  Or should those "+3 to Bricker in every state" be corrected to just a +1 Bricker, as that's the max the rule allows (and no bonus at all for states that have a preferred ideology two spots or further from Bricker).

Not to add to this, but this was something I asked and never got answered. What is the point of having the +1, +2, +3 to the ideology enthusiasms? I assumed that if a party got +2 Cons enthusiasm then that would translate to a +2 in all Cons states. 

I didn't see that reflected in the election but assumed that I had misunderstood. 

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

Also, @MrPotatoTed, I looked at the election just now if we only add a +1 to Bricker and not a +3. The election suddenly becomes much closer: Bricker 281, Kennedy 129, Tied 130. This leads to CA and NY being tied, which is huge.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Ich_bin_Tyler

[themiddlepolitical]

53 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Also, @MrPotatoTed, I looked at the election just now if we only add a +1 to Bricker and not a +3. The election suddenly becomes much closer: Bricker 281, Kennedy 129, Tied 130. This leads to CA and NY being tied, which is huge.

Sooo..With that and Capping the platform bonus at +1, We have an entirely different and realistic election

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

59 minutes ago, themiddlepolitical said:

Sooo..With that and Capping the platform bonus at +1, We have an entirely different and realistic election

I would honestly like to collect more data but if this +1 is the intended result of the enthusiastic base, then we do have already a realistic 1960 election. The real result hinged on very few votes in a few states so we have that very closely replicated. And the goal of the game is not to replicate history but provide deviations from it within a historical framework. As it stands in this instance, we have a pretty good deviation from reality. Sure, the platform ought be capped but not nearly as much as some people have been suggesting.

With the capping, the election might have resulted in this current result. 
Blue platform net movements: Liberals +1 Blue, Traditionalists +1 Red, Moderates +3 Blue.

My suggestion caps of +2/+1/-1 for Blue: Moderate+2 Blue, Liberal +1 Blue, Traditionalist +1 Red

Red platform net movements: Liberals +5 Red, Conservatives +3 Red, Moderates +5 Red

My suggestion caps of +2/+1/-1 for Red: Liberals +2 Red, Moderates +2 Red, Conservatives +1 Red (or +0 since they were the third highest group.

Meters would end up

LW: Lean Blue, Prog: Lean Blue, Lib: Lean Red, Mod: +2(+3) Blue, Cons: Lean Red, Trad: Lean Red, RW: Neutral.

And now we end up in a world where we have a super close election and Kennedy is the slight favorite.

This also assumes the +1/2/3 for enthusiasm does not add anything to state results, which was my question earlier.

Moving forward, I think this would be a good system because it encourages people to engage with the platform system because there are some bonuses to building a platform that appeals to a broad coalition of voters but does not let the platform swing meters as heavily.

For the +2/+1/-1 meter movements, it might make more sense to have the total potential points gained and lost by the factions and ideologies by the platform planks summed so that the ideology gaining the most points gets the +2, second most points the +1, and gaining the least/losing the most gets the -1  

And this concludes my essay.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Ich_bin_Tyler

[OrangeP47]

Yeah, it seems like yall want a slide show not a game.  Why play a game when you can read a book if you want the same thing to happen each time.

Anywho, my brother is coming over after work, so I probably won't be on the forum/discord until much later than usual.

[bradleyg223]

9 hours ago, themiddlepolitical said:

Can you show us this map? This seems WAY better..

fwiw this is the map I get removing that +3 

[Murrman104]

2 minutes ago, bradleyg223 said:

fwiw this is the map I get removing that +3 

This actually seems somewhat plausible with the tickets tbf

[themiddlepolitical]

3 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

Yeah, it seems like yall want a slide show not a game.  Why play a game when you can read a book if you want the same thing to happen each time.

Anywho, my brother is coming over after work, so I probably won't be on the forum/discord until much later than usual.

When a majority of people want to play it cause of it being historical, it needs to be 90% realistic. The map we got with removing those bonuses gives us a ahistorical, but still very plausible map. Also there will be settings to make the game more ahistorical in the actual game

[themiddlepolitical]

26 minutes ago, bradleyg223 said:

fwiw this is the map I get removing that +3 

This is SO much better and very plausible.

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, themiddlepolitical said:

When a majority of people want to play it cause of it being historical, it needs to be 90% realistic. The map we got with removing those bonuses gives us a ahistorical, but still very plausible map. Also there will be settings to make the game more ahistorical in the actual game

 

3 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

Yeah, it seems like yall want a slide show not a game.  Why play a game when you can read a book if you want the same thing to happen each time.

Anywho, my brother is coming over after work, so I probably won't be on the forum/discord until much later than usual.

The current intent is that historical era biases for each state can be toggled on and off.  So those who want a historically plausible simulator will be happy, and those who want a "Let's see how crazy we can go" simulator will be happy.

[vcczar]

@Cal Going to need Primary rules suggestions by the end of today. Very important.

[OrangeP47]

2 hours ago, themiddlepolitical said:

When a majority of people want to play it cause of it being historical, it needs to be 90% realistic. The map we got with removing those bonuses gives us a ahistorical, but still very plausible map. Also there will be settings to make the game more ahistorical in the actual game

Do the majority of people want to play it because of it being historical though? My argument actually is the majority of people want ahistorical things to happen.

[OrangeP47]

2 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

 

The current intent is that historical era biases for each state can be toggled on and off.  So those who want a historically plausible simulator will be happy, and those who want a "Let's see how crazy we can go" simulator will be happy.

I came home early because system issues at work, so I have time before family things to make a coherent reply.  I should not have made an off the cuff remark this morning.

Basically, my main problem is I feel everyone is knee jerking so hard they've dislocated their leg.  I've chosen to quote the above when making my reply because I feel as if it's a good feature, but I actually feel as if the historical biases are still fine where they are for both purposes.  The system is robust enough for both to happen under the current era-guidelines.

We've proposed many incremental changes that could possibly be a meet in the middle and be the best of both worlds approach, but we've largely been ignored.  Our proposals haven't really even been discussed.  It's actually kind of insulting and perhaps why I've been so aggressive as of late.  I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but it's leading to a large sense that these arguments aren't being put forth in good faith.  So please, could we address the compromises that have been proposed before radically upending the entire system?  Proposals such as each faction controlling one plank, limiting the gains to one side of the spectrum of ideology, the one random ideology per faction per benefit proposal, or Tyler's multiple proposals.  It feels as if none of our proposals have been considered because we have benefited from the current system, and that's just unfair.

[MrPotatoTed]

13 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I came home early because system issues at work, so I have time before family things to make a coherent reply.  I should not have made an off the cuff remark this morning.

Basically, my main problem is I feel everyone is knee jerking so hard they've dislocated their leg.  I've chosen to quote the above when making my reply because I feel as if it's a good feature, but I actually feel as if the historical biases are still fine where they are for both purposes.  The system is robust enough for both to happen under the current era-guidelines.

We've proposed many incremental changes that could possibly be a meet in the middle and be the best of both worlds approach, but we've largely been ignored.  Our proposals haven't really even been discussed.  It's actually kind of insulting and perhaps why I've been so aggressive as of late.  I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but it's leading to a large sense that these arguments aren't being put forth in good faith.  So please, could we address the compromises that have been proposed before radically upending the entire system?  Proposals such as each faction controlling one plank, limiting the gains to one side of the spectrum of ideology, the one random ideology per faction per benefit proposal, or Tyler's multiple proposals.  It feels as if none of our proposals have been considered because we have benefited from the current system, and that's just unfair.

My apoligies, I haven’t followed every thread of this discussion across multiple forum threads and discord stuff, and definitely have no idea who has actually proposed what.  What was your proposal?

[MrPotatoTed]

Proposals such as each faction controlling one plank, limiting the gains to one side of the spectrum of ideology, the one random ideology per faction per benefit proposal, or Tyler's multiple proposals. 
 

Ah, I see it now.  Was quickly skimming on my phone.  Will give a fuller response shortly.

[MrPotatoTed]

@OrangeP47

I want to start by being clear that these are just my personal opinions.  Opinions that come from being heavily involved in the development of the game for the past three years and also results from the 1772-1804 game as well, not just a single election in the 1960 game, yes -- but just my opinion all the same.  @Cal is the one actually working on potential edits to the election rules, and in the end, it will be @vcczar making the final decisions.  So don't take my personal opinions to be the final word on the matter, at all.  Just wanted to be transparent about that part.

"Each faction controlling one plank" -- this was actually a proposal I initially made as well.  I might have even been the first one to bring it up after the 1960 election, haha.  But my concern is that it might not actually change anything.  Humans collaborating with each other can just as easily say "Okay, here's what the five best proposals are to win us the election -- you propose this one, I'll propose that one..." etc.  This proposal might work well if everyone's just in it for their own personal points profit, and especially with CPU factions, but those who choose to collaborate to ensure they win can just as easily min/max it as you can under the current rules, to a immersion-breaking degree.

"limiting the gains to one side of the spectrum of ideology, the one random ideology per faction per benefit proposal, or Tyler's multiple proposals."

I would need more information about these before I could really say my personal opinion on them.  My apologies, there's been so much chatter and discussion across the multiple threads and discord that I haven't been able to follow every conversation closely enough while also dealing with personal/real world stuff going on right now.  But if you can recap what you're thinking here, I promise to review it.
 

[OrangeP47]

Don't worry too much Ted, I hold no ill will towards anyone, and you in particular have responded, when you've been around.  You've just been busy, I realize that.  I'll try to sum up some of the other things now, they were posted on discord where we were basically talked over, but my brother arrived earlier than I thought he would so I'm gonna have to dip out here for a few hours.

One of my ideas was that each faction, by default, randomly starts giving a -1 ideology meter to one of it's cards at platform creation start.  Satisfy that faction, and the faction grants no gains or losses.  "Super satisfy" the faction, IE have the faction satisfied with TWO OR MORE planks, and you will randomly get a +1 to one ideology that faction holds.  That not only caps gains from platform at +5, but, more importantly, ensures the gains are spread across the entire spectrum and are somewhat out of the players control, which I think would be good for balance.  You can get your gains, but planning is nerfed, and it's distributed, so to speak.

Sadly that's all I have time for right now.

[MrPotatoTed]

17 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Don't worry too much Ted, I hold no ill will towards anyone, and you in particular have responded, when you've been around.  You've just been busy, I realize that.  I'll try to sum up some of the other things now, they were posted on discord where we were basically talked over, but my brother arrived earlier than I thought he would so I'm gonna have to dip out here for a few hours.

One of my ideas was that each faction, by default, randomly starts giving a -1 ideology meter to one of it's cards at platform creation start.  Satisfy that faction, and the faction grants no gains or losses.  "Super satisfy" the faction, IE have the faction satisfied with TWO OR MORE planks, and you will randomly get a +1 to one ideology that faction holds.  That not only caps gains from platform at +5, but, more importantly, ensures the gains are spread across the entire spectrum and are somewhat out of the players control, which I think would be good for balance.  You can get your gains, but planning is nerfed, and it's distributed, so to speak.

Sadly that's all I have time for right now.

Thanks!  That's interesting.  My immediate thought though is that this would be balanced against the other party though.  So if both parties start with -1 Conservative, just to choose an ideology at random, they're offsetting each other and neither side has actually lost (or gained) Conservative support.  

Overall, my concern is that +5 (even as a absolute best case scenario here) is just way too strong.  Literally nothing else in the election process gives a +5.  Most are just a +1, maybe a +2.  

[themiddlepolitical]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Thanks!  That's interesting.  My immediate thought though is that this would be balanced against the other party though.  So if both parties start with -1 Conservative, just to choose an ideology at random, they're offsetting each other and neither side has actually lost (or gained) Conservative support.  

Overall, my concern is that +5 (even as a absolute best case scenario here) is just way too strong.  Literally nothing else in the election process gives a +5.  Most are just a +1, maybe a +2.  

I agree- I like the idea it should just be capped at +1