vcczar Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Time for me to consider reevaluation these. I'll only consider responses that evaluate every trait. I made some adjustments to what these traits do, so see the Groupthinking the Political Value thread to see those changes. Instructions: Let's use these numerical values: 25 pts - Most ideal quality for a politician to have in AMPU. 10 pts - A quality that is wholly positive and desirable. 7 pts - A trait that is generally wholly positive and desirable but not necessarily useful as a 10 ptr 3 pts - A mixed bag trait that generally more positive to have than not. -3 pts - A mixed bag trait that generally more negative to have than not. -7 pts - A trait that is generally wholly negative and undesirable but not necessarily as damaging as a negative 10 ptr -10 pts - A quality that is wholly negative and undesirable. -25 pts - The absolute worst quality for a a politician to have in AMPU. Copy+Past this list below into your comment, and apply the above numbers this list: [Note: For commands, expertise, and Interests, it will be the value you select x whatever their # in that ability, etc are.] 1 Command Ability 1 Legislative Ability 1 Governing Ability 1 Military Ability 1 Judicial Ability 1 Administrative Ability 1 Expertise 1 Interest (ex. RW Activist, LW Activist, etc) Celebrity Charisma Debater Disharmonious Easily Overwhelmed Efficient Egghead Frail Integrity Iron Fist Kingmaker Leadership Likable Manipulative Military Leader Orator Pliable Propagandist Puritan Controverial Teflon Uncharismatic Unlikable Hale Cosmopolitan Provincial Lackey Magician Bookkeeper Numberfudger Geostrategist Naive Strategist Domestic Warrior Harmonious Everyman Incoherent Incompetent Delegator Micromanager Obscure Two-faced Flipflopper Passive Predictable Lawful Illicit Domestic Apathy Late Bloomer Overeager Jurisprudence Crisis Manager Crisis Gov Crisis Admin Decisive General Master Kingmaker Carperbagger Union Loyalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Before you guys get started, I just want to say as someone with a stats background, jumping the scale from 10 to 25 with no intermediate steps is bad design from a mathematical perspective. You can't just do whatever you feel like, it'll break math. There are rules to these things. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted February 11 Author Share Posted February 11 3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said: Before you guys get started, I just want to say as someone with a stats background, jumping the scale from 10 to 25 with no intermediate steps is bad design from a mathematical perspective. You can't just do whatever you feel like, it'll break math. There are rules to these things. The # isn't so much important as ranking them according to worth. I can adjust that number to something more properly mathematical. I'm not a math person, so I'm open to ideas with the actual number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Just now, vcczar said: The # isn't so much important as ranking them according to worth. I can adjust that number to something more properly mathematical. I'm not a math person, so I'm open to ideas with the actual number. See, that's why I didn't engage with the original thread. By and large, I don't actually really care which traits we decide are more or less important than one another. I consider that highly subjective, so really, whatever is good. When it comes to the math, though, hit me up when you're done, and I'll make sure the numbers actually work in a proper formula when you have your ranking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 35 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said: See, that's why I didn't engage with the original thread. By and large, I don't actually really care which traits we decide are more or less important than one another. I consider that highly subjective, so really, whatever is good. When it comes to the math, though, hit me up when you're done, and I'll make sure the numbers actually work in a proper formula when you have your ranking. Can you help us understand why it would "break the math"? What would that mean? If we decide, for example, that a good trait is worth ten and a great trait is worth 2.5 good traits so that makes it 25...what math are we breaking? It's simply a ranking system so you can get the gist of a character by glancing at one number. It won't necessarily give you the whole picture (a lot of good traits balanced with a lot of bad traits would give you the same overall number as someone with no traits at all), but it certainly helps outliers jump off the screen at you. I ask sincerely by the way, not out of a place of defensiveness. I just sincerely don't know what you mean by the math breaking. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnewt Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 You’re not asking us just to use these numbers, right? These are just benchmarks to use to help assign other values too, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said: Can you help us understand why it would "break the math"? What would that mean? If we decide, for example, that a good trait is worth ten and a great trait is worth 2.5 good traits so that makes it 25...what math are we breaking? It's simply a ranking system so you can get the gist of a character by glancing at one number. It won't necessarily give you the whole picture (a lot of good traits balanced with a lot of bad traits would give you the same overall number as someone with no traits at all), but it certainly helps outliers jump off the screen at you. I ask sincerely by the way, not out of a place of defensiveness. I just sincerely don't know what you mean by the math breaking. Just woke up, so a bit groggy, so I'll give the short answer: If your best traits are worth that much more than your merely okay traits, you run the risk if making the lesser traits not even matter. Imagine winning the lottery for $10 million vs winning the lottery for $2. Nobody calls winning the lottery for $2 "winning the lottery". Basically, if your top traits are worth several times your bottom traits, it's the exact same thing. Why even bother adding points if mathematically it's a drop in the bucket. It literally doesn't affect the score at all. Obviously what was posted at the top here isn't that lopsided, but I'm saying it has the *potential* to be that lopsided if you aren't careful. Why? Because the effect stacks with the more traits in play. Sure, you can argue some of these traits really are like winning $2 vs winning $10 million, but I highly doubt that was your intention. What you probably want is closer to winning 10 million vs winning 5 million. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said: Just woke up, so a bit groggy, so I'll give the short answer: If your best traits are worth that much more than your merely okay traits, you run the risk if making the lesser traits not even matter. Imagine winning the lottery for $10 million vs winning the lottery for $2. Nobody calls winning the lottery for $2 "winning the lottery". Basically, if your top traits are worth several times your bottom traits, it's the exact same thing. Why even bother adding points if mathematically it's a drop in the bucket. It literally doesn't affect the score at all. Obviously what was posted at the top here isn't that lopsided, but I'm saying it has the *potential* to be that lopsided if you aren't careful. Why? Because the effect stacks with the more traits in play. Sure, you can argue some of these traits really are like winning $2 vs winning $10 million, but I highly doubt that was your intention. What you probably want is closer to winning 10 million vs winning 5 million. Ok...I guess I see what you're saying, but that would really be like if we were saying one trait is worth $2 and one trait is worth $10 million. The actual numbers you took exception to were the equivalent of winning $10 vs $25. Haha. But it's fine, I guess I understand what you're saying now, which was the goal. I don't see it as a problem -- some trait combos will indeed be like winning the lottery and others will be dumpster fire trash, but most will be somewhere in the middle with a couple good traits and a couple bad ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Just now, MrPotatoTed said: Ok...I guess I see what you're saying, but that would really be like if we were saying one trait is worth $2 and one trait is worth $10 million. The actual numbers you took exception to were the equivalent of winning $10 vs $25. Haha. But it's fine, I guess I understand what you're saying now, which was the goal. I don't see it as a problem -- some trait combos will indeed be like winning the lottery and others will be dumpster fire trash, but most will be somewhere in the middle with a couple good traits and a couple bad ones. I mean yeah, 10 vs 25 is less extreme, but also I literally had this exact convo at work yesterday and 10 vs 25 can still can problems. I'm saying 2, 5, 7, 10 may be a better scale, etc, with a 15 thrown in if you really want it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Just now, OrangeP47 said: I mean yeah, 10 vs 25 is less extreme, but also I literally had this exact convo at work yesterday and 10 vs 25 can still can problems. I'm saying 2, 5, 7, 10 may be a better scale, etc, with a 15 thrown in if you really want it. Gotcha. I like the bigger numbers because having only a couple point difference between politicians makes the PV kind of useless. Like if you're playing Madden and every player on your team has an overall of 85, who are your starters? You need some space between the top guys and the scum at the bottom to differentiate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezi Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 I honestly never had an issue with PV and don't know why there's such heavy movement to change it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 @vcczar I feel like we've discussed this before but can't remember your thoughts on it. So bringing it up again. I think all players would agree that having command is a big deal, for the obvious reasons. So I'd propose that each level of command is worth at least +10 points, if not +25. The problem then is that it boosts up absolute nobodies like Richard Ojeda or Lawrence Lessig just because they happened to run an absolute nothing Presidential campaign, thus earning a 1 command start. I'd propose that being "born" with 1 command should only go to, say, the actual nominees from each historical election. (I'd be okay with lowering the bar somewhere between "actual nominee" and "literally just filed some paperwork", but that would likely require more research and arbitrary decision making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 2 minutes ago, Rezi said: I honestly never had an issue with PV and don't know why there's such heavy movement to change it The main point right now is that there's a typo in the formula that tanks PV for someone with lackey, which isn't that bad of a trait. While we're fixing that, we thought about updating the rest of the code as the actual use of each trait has changed since the formula was first created. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said: Gotcha. I like the bigger numbers because having only a couple point difference between politicians makes the PV kind of useless. Like if you're playing Madden and every player on your team has an overall of 85, who are your starters? You need some space between the top guys and the scum at the bottom to differentiate them. Oh that can be calibrated if you want. Hence why I said when you're done deciding your ranking hit me up and I'll work on the math for you. Larger numbers do have the advantage of finer tuned control, etc, as well. It was mostly the ratio though I was pointing out. The gap between "good" and "great" being 2.5 is pretty sketch. If it was a 2.5 gap between "terrible but still positive" and "great" being 2.5 then yeah, maybe, sure, but not the way the current ratios are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murrman104 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 I think it might be worthwhile to consider JFK at present. Ive had him in 2 playtests and he's a great pol to a player. Charisma, Orator, Likable, Debator and Teflon. Sure he's weighed down by Controversial, Frail and Pliable but surely he still has a pretty good PV?. He has a PV of 34. That puts him at the same PV as former Interior secretary John W Synder and 1 less than than North Carolina Rep Skipper Bowles (the latter with worse stats and the same number of XP). Hopefully a revamped formula should make sure the AI sees JFK as someone they really want on their team/ a potential leader due to his standout (and rare) traits which should vastly outweigh his honestly not that bad downside traits 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted February 11 Author Share Posted February 11 7 minutes ago, Rezi said: I honestly never had an issue with PV and don't know why there's such heavy movement to change it I'm just going off of what other people seem to want. My only urgent change is making the 0-100 PV scale in such a way that the average politician is a 50. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 1 minute ago, vcczar said: I'm just going off of what other people seem to want. My only urgent change is making the 0-100 PV scale in such a way that the average politician is a 50. See, now that I can work with. Ideally when you start you have calibration values in mind like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 3 minutes ago, vcczar said: I'm just going off of what other people seem to want. My only urgent change is making the 0-100 PV scale in such a way that the average politician is a 50. I actually disagree with the idea that we need a 0-100 scale and especially that the average politician should be 50. I think that creates artificial inflation so that we’re back to the Madden problem where the scale seems to be 0-100 but in reality 70s are dead weight on your team because anyone worth doing anything with is actually 80s to 90s. You’ll never see anyone in the 60s on a team, and those below 60s literally don’t even exist. I think the rock stars should be rated as rockstars high above the average and certainly way above the worst. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPotatoTed Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 I'm not the strategic expert that other players are -- I know we have some real election-manipulating experts amongst our playtesters, for example. Haha. So I don't mind deferring to others here. But for the sake of putting some values up on the board: 1 Command Ability +25 (contingent on only real-life nominees being born with command, rather than Richard Ojedas and Lawrence Lessigs) 1 Legislative Ability +10 1 Governing Ability +10 1 Military Ability +7 1 Judicial Ability +7 1 Administrative Ability +10 1 Expertise +3 1 Interest (ex. RW Activist, LW Activist, etc) +3 (But I would make the media interest +7) Celebrity +3 Charisma +7 Debater +7 Disharmonious -7 Easily Overwhelmed -25 Efficient +10 Egghead +7 Frail -7 Integrity +7 Iron Fist +10 Kingmaker +10 Leadership +10 Likable +7 Manipulative +10 Military Leader +3 Orator +7 Pliable -10 Propagandist +7 Puritan +3 Controverial -10 Teflon +10 Uncharismatic - 7 Unlikable -7 Hale +7 Cosmopolitan +3 Provincial +3 Lackey -3 Magician +10 Bookkeeper +3 Numberfudger -3 Geostrategist +3 Naive Strategist -3 Domestic Warrior +3 Harmonious +3 Everyman +3 Incoherent -10 Incompetent -25 Delegator -3 Micromanager +3 Obscure -10 Two-faced -10 Flipflopper -7 Passive -10 Predictable -7 Lawful +3 Illicit -3 Domestic Apathy -3 Late Bloomer (I don't think this actually does anything in the middle of a game, does it?) Overeager (same) Jurisprudence +3 Crisis Manager +3 Crisis Gov +3 Crisis Admin +3 Decisive General +3 Master Kingmaker +25 Carperbagger -7 Union Loyalist +7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said: I actually disagree with the idea that we need a 0-100 scale and especially that the average politician should be 50. I think that creates artificial inflation so that we’re back to the Madden problem where the scale seems to be 0-100 but in reality 70s are dead weight on your team because anyone worth doing anything with is actually 80s to 90s. You’ll never see anyone in the 60s on a team, and those below 60s literally don’t even exist. I think the rock stars should be rated as rockstars high above the average and certainly way above the worst. I'd kind of be in favor of 0-200 which would help a bit with that, more values = more differences. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted February 11 Author Share Posted February 11 7 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said: I'd kind of be in favor of 0-200 which would help a bit with that, more values = more differences. NFL Reference dot come kind of does that with QB values. 100 = average. They don't have an overall rating, but they have an approximate value, which is sometime somewhat unrelated to the QB values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeP47 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 1 minute ago, vcczar said: NFL Reference dot come kind of does that with QB values. 100 = average. They don't have an overall rating, but they have an approximate value, which is sometime somewhat unrelated to the QB values. I can't recall if I said it earlier, as I said a lot of things, but more values also means you can tune the scale more finely as well. 5 vs 10, against 10 vs 20 is *technically* the same thing.... in a vacuum... but with 10 vs 20... you can also easily have a 15 in there if you feel something is half way between them, and you will still get nice round numbers, etc. You do have to be careful of ratio inflation cause you can't just double everything as 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4 is different than 2 vs 4 vs 6 vs 8, but you see what I'm getting at. A greater degree of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcczar Posted February 11 Author Share Posted February 11 1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said: I can't recall if I said it earlier, as I said a lot of things, but more values also means you can tune the scale more finely as well. 5 vs 10, against 10 vs 20 is *technically* the same thing.... in a vacuum... but with 10 vs 20... you can also easily have a 15 in there if you feel something is half way between them, and you will still get nice round numbers, etc. You do have to be careful of ratio inflation cause you can't just double everything as 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4 is different than 2 vs 4 vs 6 vs 8, but you see what I'm getting at. A greater degree of control. I'll probably pick some random politicians and try different model of PV to see what everyone likes. I'll use the best politician, worst politician, an average politician, and some other famous names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willthescout7 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said: I actually disagree with the idea that we need a 0-100 scale and especially that the average politician should be 50. I think that creates artificial inflation so that we’re back to the Madden problem where the scale seems to be 0-100 but in reality 70s are dead weight on your team because anyone worth doing anything with is actually 80s to 90s. You’ll never see anyone in the 60s on a team, and those below 60s literally don’t even exist. I think the rock stars should be rated as rockstars high above the average and certainly way above the worst. This also raises another point: because of sports games like Madden, Nba2k, The Show, Fifa, ect, people are used to seeing 0-100 scales. They can take a quick glance and get a general picture. They know instinctively the general difference between a 77 rated player and a 90 rated player, without digging deeper. I get what you are saying, and it's a valid point. But I think we also need to consider that for players 0-100 might be an ease of access thing that just needs to happen. Another option is 20-80 which only people who play Out of the Park Baseball or work in the baseball industry will understand, but figured I would mention it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnewt Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 25 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said: Another option is 20-80 which only people who play Out of the Park Baseball or work in the baseball industry will understand, but figured I would mention it. I think they would be strongly against the 20-80 scale, since it also only uses intervals of five. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.