Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Congressperson Green thought it would be clever to make a bunch of alts to boost their own bills. Congressperson Green now has 0 cash, 0 clout, 0 csp and 20 health. Have fun, Congressperson Green. I really loled when I saw this on clout news !!!
Really? Tell you what: get as many red stats as you can, and tell me how that works out for you EOD monday. Oh, also, do recall that Martial Law is a red stat of sorts, too.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Oh, and maybe change the "Invalid Selection." message to "You can't introduce that bill because xyz is opposed, yada yada yada..." or something like given the ambiguity and confusingness of "Invalid selection."
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I can't introduce any Foreign Relations bills, and when I try, I get an "Invalid Selection" message in my status page.
There are known issues with the algorithm he suggested, I wish to write all algorithms myself to increase opacity, the values he used for CSP are not realistically useful in gameplay terms, and as I said I have plans to do something similar in a different way already anyway.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Correction from Part 1: Player #3 should lose 80 CSP, not 70. Similar to a Borda Count poll system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count).
I will be designing any algorithms for the game myself, as that way I am the only one who knows about them. I do have plans to improve the electoral system for VIPs in the future based on red stats and current party proportions.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
(pt. 2) The only issues with this equation are that 1) If the player is ranked, say, 12, it'll ADD the reverse amount of CSP. 2) If current happiness is higher than the threshold, then it will add the reverse amount to players' CSP. Both of these are easily fixed by a simple "IF (Player's clout ranking is >11 && Happiness is < whatever threshold is set) {subtract E from player's CSP}" -type PHP statement. So, now that I've done maybe a tenth of the work to implement it, maybe you'll make it happen?? :P
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
(pt. 1) Idea from Jerald's post in Global: If happiness gets too low, chances of a different party winning the presidency and cabinet positions should increase. Additionally, those in the top 10 should lose CSP when it gets too low, based on their ranking. For instance, if happiness is at 0% an Player A is #1, they should lose 100 CSP per day. Player B (#2) should lose 90 CSP, and #3 should lose 70 and so on. This should decrease based on whatever level happiness is at, and when happiness is at 100%, it should stop. Best explained by the following: A=Amount of CSP to be lost by #1 at 0% happiness, B=Happiness Threshold (or the point that public happiness must exceed for those in top 10 to stop losing CSP), C=Current Happiness, D=Ranking in top 10, E=CSP lost by Player. Therefore: E=(A*((11-D))/10)*(B-C). (cont.)
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I'd personally rather see the option of associating with the underworld added before you begin to focus on The Lobby. Just my $0.02.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Hmm... Clout, The Lobby... and the Wonderful World of Skullduggery, in which you take control of an innocent little thug/assassin. (Haha, just a thought I had when I saw the comment mentioning The Lobby. Just couldn't resist. However... I could see it in practice...) ;P
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Also I believe that every party should have elections and elect 5 ,let's say' leaders .The leaders of the party could make a statement of alliance , I don't know.Something like that . Because the reds are more of the libercons together. This is a travesty !!!
I'm not sure why you think people would be more apt to pay attention to an arbitrary "leadership" role that has no impact on their gameplay. Most of the people not working with you don't read any chats/posts/anything in the first place. The problem is different than you think at a basic level.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
You should be able to affect the game also in other ways like a binary that will arrange when you will get money .Like not a week but in three or four days
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Accounts in Switzerland and the Caymans also provide interest, so perhaps that similarity should exist here as well. You know, in the interests of realism.
Are you sure? I would wager that those accounts are not interest-earning and actually have a fee associated with them. Investments and savings accounts are very different.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
you need to lower bank deposit fees. It doesn't take that much money to put money in the bank that is 1 1/4 weekly salaries. its too much. can you do something?
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
but the devs of WoW DO favor horde, and the devs of TOR DO favor the empire, and Q DOES favor... uh, the not red team?(i think)
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
As a Socialist, I lose consituent support for playing for a Tighten Immigration bill. I thought the Reds were isolationist?
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
On salary day, will the increase and decrease salary bills passed that day be taken into affect before or after salaries are given?
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
When I played WoW, people accused the devs of favoring the Horde. In TOR they whine the devs favor the Empire. Congratulations on reaching real MMO status, Q.
It would still make cash too good. Assassinations have been carefully balanced over time to function in a way that I think is fair and gives significant survivability advantages to those that avoid drugs.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
oh and by the way... having "Hacking the game is bad, mmkay?" come up when you lose connection and try to reload in game is annoying.
That comes up whenever any condition occurs that the back-end identifies as suspicious. Some mundane things can look inseparable from certain types of hacking to a computer algorithm. Sorry.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I know I've brought up similar things before, but under assassinations, we should be able to pay something like $125k for a cruddy amateur, $250k for a middle-of-the-road shooter (better than the current bums we're hiring), $500k for a real hitman, and $750k for an almost certain kill by a Jason Bourne-type pro. This gives us the option to pay more for better results, something I believe is direly needed. I think this range of pricing would be prohibitive enough to prevent too much abuse of the top two options. The way it would work in game mechanics is, after you select assassination, you're given the option of hiring these four different tiers with a brief explanation of each. I also think it should be harder to be caught in an assassination scandal if you hire the pros, rather than hiring your local hood; the hood will make more mistakes, get caught easier, and thus get YOU caught easier. Not so with Bourne. Anyway, give us better hitmen!
People have more money than you think. This would be a VERY crazy idea. Assassinations need to be pretty weak and exist mainly as a way of taking down otherwise untouchable people.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Guess who's going to stop playing this game because of your actions Q. Me and about half of Hegemony, some of your biggest promoters up till now. Good job.
You come in here accusing me of lying, changing the game without telling anyone and insulting me. I prove you wrong and you still come back with this crap? What "actions" are you even talking about? I just proved there were literally none.