[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects Since New Update

by **Almonaster Nuevo** » Sun Jul 03, 2016 12:51 pm

Greater Hunnia wrote:Really, what is the Weather stat actually? I always wanted to have a nation with horrible weather, but look, I'm in the top 6%...

As far as I know it's completely random.

by **Mushet** » Sun Jul 03, 2016 1:09 pm

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
Mushet wrote:I've noted this earlier but it happened again with Xochitlan, the moderate option, the one about mining a small part of the rainforest while preserving most of it on issue #023, option 3 dropped environmental beauty by a ridiculous amount. The moderate option shouldn't be dropping the ranking from 508 to 29.76, even for new nations.

Checked and you're right, this did happen to you. However it doesn't look unreasonable given your starting points. Sometimes relaxing environmental laws a little is a tipping point which has unexpectedly large impact. Letting the mining sector into previously untouched rainforests (even in a limited way) is what has launched you into compromising on the environment.

Much like real life, its much easier to do damage to the environment than repair it.

Does it have to be such a huge drop, I don't think it was that bad before.

by **Shinuyama** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 1:23 am

Issue #452 (Foetal Furore) might need to be checked.

According to my notes, all of the four options lower Civil Rights, Intelligence, Nudity, Recreational Drug Use, and raise Social Conservatism. That doesn't seem right. Why have multiple options if they all do the same thing?

by **Atomic Utopia** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:07 pm

I just answered 227 with the option that I presumed would increase press freedom and so on, option number one. Well instead it dropped my civil rights and increased ideological practicality. I do not know how giving reporters carte blanche to monitor every waking moment of the leadership of my country would reduce civil rights, but somehow it did.

In fact, here is the stat dump I got to see.

by **Trotterdam** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:32 pm

@Atomic Utopia: You mean #277, not #227.

by **Christian Democrats** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 3:59 pm

Shinuyama wrote:Issue #452 (Foetal Furore) might need to be checked.

According to my notes, all of the four options lower Civil Rights, Intelligence, Nudity, Recreational Drug Use, and raise Social Conservatism. That doesn't seem right. Why have multiple options if they all do the same thing?

That's strange. When I authored that issue, I asked the editors to do the following:

1: civil rights slightly increase, political freedom decreases
2: civil rights slightly decrease, political freedom increases
3: civil rights decrease
4: civil rights decrease, political freedom significantly decreases

I'm still of the opinion that the above is best. I expected most players to choose options 1 and 2 -- civil vs. political rights.

by **Mushet** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:48 pm

My puppet Cappital banned lawsuits against corporations with option 1 of issue #105 and it raised income equality and average income of the poor while lowering average income of the rich and wealth gaps, seems like it should have the opposite affect.

by **Luna Amore** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:20 pm

Shinuyama wrote:Issue #452 (Foetal Furore) might need to be checked.

According to my notes, all of the four options lower Civil Rights, Intelligence, Nudity, Recreational Drug Use, and raise Social Conservatism. That doesn't seem right. Why have multiple options if they all do the same thing?

Depends on the nation answering. All of the stats are different.

by **Eahland** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:56 am

Almonaster Nuevo wrote:
Greater Hunnia wrote:Really, what is the Weather stat actually? I always wanted to have a nation with horrible weather, but look, I'm in the top 6%...

As far as I know it's completely random.

It's not random. My Weather is atrocious - currently 147,534th of 147,854 in the world - because a number of issue results affect it consistently, and I've been answering things pretty consistently for a long time. Some of those are logical - generally, options that are pro-heavy industry and uncaring of the environment will make Weather worse. Some of them are less so - I've seen some results that I think use Weather as an atmospheric thing... shiny happy nations get blue sunny days, cyberpunk dystopias get skies the color of television turned to a dead channel. And then there are some with no discernible rationale, like encouraging multilingualism making your Weather worse...

by **Greater Hunnia** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:10 am

Eahland wrote:
Almonaster Nuevo wrote:As far as I know it's completely random.

It's not random. My Weather is atrocious - currently 147,534th of 147,854 in the world - because a number of issue results affect it consistently, and I've been answering things pretty consistently for a long time. Some of those are logical - generally, options that are pro-heavy industry and uncaring of the environment will make Weather worse. Some of them are less so - I've seen some results that I think use Weather as an atmospheric thing... shiny happy nations get blue sunny days, cyberpunk dystopias get skies the color of television turned to a dead channel. And then there are some with no discernible rationale, like encouraging multilingualism making your Weather worse...

I want horrible weather but the game wont let me :lol:

even though I really want it. I even considered writing an issue about a "weather control device"...

by **Bears Armed** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:11 am

Apparently boosting your nation's Culture worsens its 'Weather' rating slightly -- although the extent to which it does so might have been reduced from earlier days -- on the assumption that 'Culture' takes place indoors and that if you want to spend more time indoors then it might be because of bad weather...
A bit "cart before the horse" that, in my opinion...

by **Christian Democrats** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:25 pm

Option 520.2: "The military has declared war on all religious influence" increases civil rights, really? :eyebrow:

EDIT: Does Option 260.2 ever decrease the Effective Tax Rate?

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:59 am

Eahland wrote:#542 "What A Waste", option 3 ("Once again, Science has the answer! [..] But, awesome Super Science? Triple yes, yes, yes!") lowers Economic Freedom significantly as well as Obesity(?), but has no effect on Scientific Advancement or Intelligence.

This is my one, so I'll take a look.

Yep, economic freedom decreases significantly. This is as intended: you are introducing expensive restrictions on how waste must be disposed of. You're forcing safety regulations on the industry.

Increased industrial expenses? Yes. Necessary security costs and extensive safety regulations? Yes, sure, whatever.

Obesity goes down a smidgen, but that's at the side effect level, not a direct change.

Scientific Advancement doesn't increase because every one of the technologies mentioned (Vitrification! Ion exchange! Synroc!) are existent technologies that have been round IRL for over 30 years. That's admittedly a subtle thing, but its deliberate.

Intelligence doesn't change, as there's nothing in this approach that makes people inherently smarter. While you're spending more on education, you're doing so to train up a specialised skill set, not to increase the overall quick wittedness or insightfulness of the citizenry. More knowledge in the population? Sure, but not enough to justify a stat increase in what is a low granularity measurement.

In other words, all working as intended.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:02 am

Atomic Utopia wrote:I just answered 227 with the option that I presumed would increase press freedom and so on, option number one. Well instead it dropped my civil rights and increased ideological practicality. I do not know how giving reporters carte blanche to monitor every waking moment of the leadership of my country would reduce civil rights, but somehow it did.

Depends on the nation answering: civil rights are not limited to press freedoms.

Looks to be working as intended.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:06 am

Mushet wrote:
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
Checked and you're right, this did happen to you. However it doesn't look unreasonable given your starting points. Sometimes relaxing environmental laws a little is a tipping point which has unexpectedly large impact. Letting the mining sector into previously untouched rainforests (even in a limited way) is what has launched you into compromising on the environment.

Much like real life, its much easier to do damage to the environment than repair it.

Does it have to be such a huge drop, I don't think it was that bad before.

Honestly, the stats of option 3 there are in proportion with other issues that have mild negative effects on the environment. The perceived scale you're experiencing is related to that puppet nation, not to the option, and there doesn't look to be anything to edit.

Run the same option for some other nations (such as the horrorshow that is Candlewhisper Archive, or the excellent nation of Mushet), and the environmental drop seen is negligible.

by **Jute** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:35 am

Issue 548 (Appointment of Science Advisor), option 1, the ecological option, actually reduced Eco-friendliness by more than 6 %. How in the world does that make sense?

by **Bears Armed** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:00 am

Jute wrote:Issue 548 (Appointment of Science Advisor), option 1, the ecological option, actually reduced Eco-friendliness by more than 6 %. How in the world does that make sense?

'Eco-friendliness' doesn't measure environmental quality, it measures government spending to preserve/fix the environment: Get your policies right to start with, which is more likely with this choice of advisor, and you don't need to spend as much.

by **Jute** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:22 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Jute wrote:Issue 548 (Appointment of Science Advisor), option 1, the ecological option, actually reduced Eco-friendliness by more than 6 %. How in the world does that make sense?

'Eco-friendliness' doesn't measure environmental quality, it measures government spending to preserve/fix the environment: Get your policies right to start with, which is more likely with this choice of advisor, and you don't need to spend as much.

I thought it measured how ecologically concerned the government in general is (how much it sees environmentalist policies as important, for example), not how much it spends...

by **Greater Hunnia** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:08 pm

Speaking of #548, I still don't understand why all choices that damage the enviroment have an effect on agriculture and cheese production akin to a nuclear fallout's. Enviromental beauty should be its own reward, there's no need to give unrealistic benefits to enviromentalism, and unrealistic downsides to industrialism.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:37 pm

Greater Hunnia wrote:Speaking of #548, I still don't understand why all choices that damage the enviroment have an effect on agriculture and cheese production akin to a nuclear fallout's. Enviromental beauty should be its own reward, there's no need to give unrealistic benefits to enviromentalism, and unrealistic downsides to industrialism.

That's Technical forum, if you want to talk that. The knock on effects of environment were something I noted before becoming an editor, and they are pretty disproportionate. However, I chalk it up to parody: it's kind of fun to point to my nation's crazy low lifespan, which is entirely out of keeping with its solid healthcare, booming economy and high scientific advancement, and basically entirely due to the knock on effects of toxic environment on health.

As I said, that's the game engine. Love it or hate it, its outside of our remit as editors.

by **Christian Democrats** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:45 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Option 520.2: "The military has declared war on all religious influence" increases civil rights, really?

EDIT: Does Option 260.2 ever decrease the Effective Tax Rate?

I'd still like these questions answered.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
Greater Hunnia wrote:Speaking of #548, I still don't understand why all choices that damage the enviroment have an effect on agriculture and cheese production akin to a nuclear fallout's. Enviromental beauty should be its own reward, there's no need to give unrealistic benefits to enviromentalism, and unrealistic downsides to industrialism.

That's Technical forum, if you want to talk that. The knock on effects of environment were something I noted before becoming an editor, and they are pretty disproportionate. However, I chalk it up to parody: it's kind of fun to point to my nation's crazy low lifespan, which is entirely out of keeping with its solid healthcare, booming economy and high scientific advancement, and basically entirely due to the knock on effects of toxic environment on health.

I have the same problem. Christian Democrats is ranked top 0.2% for economy, top 0.6% for scientific advancement, top 0.9% for intelligence, top 3% for average income, top 4% for average income of the poor, top 4% for health, top 4% for employment, top 7% for safety, top 7% for average income of the rich, and top 12% for HDI but top 99% for lifespan. The average citizen dies at 25.

So, apparently, my people are very wealthy, very scientific, very intelligent, very healthy, and very safe but die at 25.

by **British West Zuzunia** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:15 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:That's Technical forum, if you want to talk that. The knock on effects of environment were something I noted before becoming an editor, and they are pretty disproportionate. However, I chalk it up to parody: it's kind of fun to point to my nation's crazy low lifespan, which is entirely out of keeping with its solid healthcare, booming economy and high scientific advancement, and basically entirely due to the knock on effects of toxic environment on health.

I have the same problem. Christian Democrats is ranked top 0.2% for economy, top 0.6% for scientific advancement, top 0.9% for intelligence, top 3% for average income, top 4% for average income of the poor, top 4% for health, top 4% for employment, top 7% for safety, top 7% for average income of the rich, and top 12% for HDI but top 99% for lifespan. The average citizen dies at 25.

So, apparently, my people are very wealthy, very scientific, very intelligent, very healthy, and very safe but die at 25.

On the flip side, this nation, which is the 36th most primitive in the world, has a firmly-held belief that medical care is blasphemous, considers pipe bombs a valid form of political commentary, will just straight-up murder citizens for any number of ridiculous reasons, and has no discernible economy, has an average lifespan above 85.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:16 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Option 520.2: "The military has declared war on all religious influence" increases civil rights, really?

Depends on your nation. Complex result, with the option itself giving more information on the subtleties of this than the effect line. However, working as intended.

EDIT: Does Option 260.2 ever decrease the Effective Tax Rate?

I'd still like these questions answered.

The taxation stat isn't the "effective tax rate" in how much the government effectively collects, its the "effective tax rate" in being what the average citizen is charged in income tax, whether they pay it or not. You might argue that in some circumstances, cracking down on tax evasion is going to decrease the tax that the government needs to levy. However, you might also argue that chasing tax evaders costs more money than it recoups, or that governments are liable to pocket the extra treasury money without reducing tax elsewhere. If the government sees its incomes rise by 2-3% (a reasonable estimate for closing the tax gap by half) it seems likely that they'll use that extra money to shrink the budget deficit a little faster, or invest it in some other spending program, depending on political leanings. Not many would be inclined to put money back in the taxpayer's pockets. For those that would, there's option 1.

by **Jute** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:34 am

British West Zuzunia wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I have the same problem. Christian Democrats is ranked top 0.2% for economy, top 0.6% for scientific advancement, top 0.9% for intelligence, top 3% for average income, top 4% for average income of the poor, top 4% for health, top 4% for employment, top 7% for safety, top 7% for average income of the rich, and top 12% for HDI but top 99% for lifespan. The average citizen dies at 25.

So, apparently, my people are very wealthy, very scientific, very intelligent, very healthy, and very safe but die at 25.

On the flip side, this nation, which is the 36th most primitive in the world, has a firmly-held belief that medical care is blasphemous, considers pipe bombs a valid form of political commentary, will just straight-up murder citizens for any number of ridiculous reasons, and has no discernible economy, has an average lifespan above 85.

I also have high religiousness, high intelligence, high primitiveness and high healthiness combined with some decent scientific advancement. So simple-minded (I guess?), but nonetheless intelligent and scientifically literate people who live long, devout lifes

by **Almonaster Nuevo** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:11 am

Bears Armed wrote:Apparently boosting your nation's Culture worsens its 'Weather' rating slightly -- although the extent to which it does so might have been reduced from earlier days -- on the assumption that 'Culture' takes place indoors and that if you want to spend more time indoors then it might be because of bad weather...
A bit "cart before the horse" that, in my opinion...

If that's it, then it's not all that's involved. My weather has improved by over 50 metres recently, and my culture is still high.

[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects Since New Update

Who is online