[MEGATHREAD] Unusual Issue Effects Since New Update

[SuperRegulatedCapitalism]

After I selected choice 3 on issue 265 "To Bail Or Not To Bail", my average income decreased from 38,800 to 35,000 dollars (the fact that income fell didn't surprise me in itself, but the amount that it decreased by shocked me a little) and most importantly, taxes were raised from 43.1% to almost 51%. The description of choice 3 didn't indicate or suggest a tax hike of that magnitude, and doesn't seem like it would result in one. Option 1 is the only choice that seems like it would raise taxes so much.

Firstly, your nation is young, so many changes will have greater magnitude.
Secondly, your economic output decreased, thus the state had to increase taxes in order to support the same level of government spendings.

[Trotterdam]

#628 option 2. "Environmental officials dismiss uncontrolled wildfires burning down major cities as nature taking its course." This increases Lifespan.

This is probably a consequence of the known issue with Environmental Beauty having too much effect on Lifespan, but I still felt it worth mentioning.

After I selected choice 3 on issue 265 "To Bail Or Not To Bail", my average income decreased from 38,800 to 35,000 dollars (the fact that income fell didn't surprise me in itself, but the amount that it decreased by shocked me a little) and most importantly, taxes were raised from 43.1% to almost 51%. The description of choice 3 didn't indicate or suggest a tax hike of that magnitude, and doesn't seem like it would result in one. Option 1 is the only choice that seems like it would raise taxes so much.

38,800 is quite weak for an economy. Note that your Average Income is currently in the bottom 17% of the world, and economically-healthy nations generally have five-digit values for Average Income, and sometimes even more. So I think this is a case of a small absolute change looking like a large relative change because your score was already so low.

As for taxes, economy being so weak means that you need to need higher tax percentages in order to raise the same amount of money.

[Really stateless nation]

“That angry fellow is correct, you know...” says Paris Park, an agreeable businesswoman who gently guides the furious commuter to the back door, “but who is to say the burden of the cost should be on the government’s back? Me and my colleagues in Budget Rail Incorporated can get Really stateless nation high speed connections with no cost to your taxpayers. We’ve got suppliers of nearly-new metal, fairly decent quality second-hand trains, engines that almost passed emission standards. We’ve even identified which arable land owners you’ll need to force to sell to us to make this service fast and profitable. Just sign, quickly, here, here, here, and umm... initials here...”

It increased income equality from 0.72 to 0.81.

[South Arachovia]

I was confronted with the issue #161: Where There’s A Will There’s A Tax, and decided to go with option 2 (Abolish inheritance tax).
Literally nothing changed: I expected changes on economy or taxation, but there was absolutely nothing. It's like there never was an issue in the first place.

Does this usually happen?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I was confronted with the issue #161: Where There’s A Will There’s A Tax, and decided to go with option 2 (Abolish inheritance tax).
Literally nothing changed: I expected changes on economy or taxation, but there was absolutely nothing. It's like there never was an issue in the first place.

Does this usually happen?

Yes, often. This is design as intended. If an issue choice affirms what the game already knows about you, then it reads as "business as usual" and no change occurs.

This issue is a bit direct and unsubtle in its execution, being an older issue, so it's a lot more likely to occur with this issue and that option than with most situations, but even with many modern issues its entirely possible for nothing to happen.

[Dooom35796821595]

I don't know what the exact issue was, but it was about the nations leader and their lack of children. I was just wondering why the nations leader having a child would decrease scientific advancement by 7.7%, and if there is any way to fix it.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I don't know what the exact issue was, but it was about the nations leader and their lack of children. I was just wondering why the nations leader having a child would decrease scientific advancement by 7.7%, and if there is any way to fix it.

Issue 432, option 1.

Somewhat specific to you and nations like yours, this answer:

1) In deciding to have children, you are reversing a policy to vat-grow the population.
2) This knocks back your Scientific Advancement as vat=growing the population is quite high tech.

I gotta say, statement #1 there is flawed, in my mind. No reason why Leader having kids should mean that the population stops being born in vats. For that matter, no reason that Leader couldn't have his kid from a vat.

Happily for you, I've already noticed this during my big review of all policies, commenced December 1 2016, and flagged this for a change.

Unfortunately, "vat people" is quite a long way down the list alphabetically, and for logistics and error-avoidance reasons I'm not messing with the order I'm carrying out this review, so you can mentally tag this as "known error, scheduled for fixing in future."

[Tasimah]

I got the issue called 'The Low Aspiration Nation' or something and employment actually went down despite the Basket Weaving sector getting bigger.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I got the issue called 'The Low Aspiration Nation' or something and employment actually went down despite the Basket Weaving sector getting bigger.

There's more to your nation than Basket Weaving. LOTS of things were affected by that option choice, and the simulation crunched them altogether and gave you a final change of Workforce Participation Rate from 64.98% to 64.61%.

This is working as intended.

[Perfectionistic]

Puppet of Tinhampton here. Just to let you know: The HDI rankings page states that "The World Census compiles a "Human Development Index" by measuring citizens' average life expectancy, education and income." Choosing option #1 on Issue #320 increases Perfectionistic's average lifespan by 0.08% (61.92 --> 61.97), but does nothing towards its HDI. What's happening here?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Two possibilities:

1) The page lies. The stat is derived from lots of things. Something else may have counteracted that.
2) Change may be too small to be reported

[Perfectionistic]

Two possibilities:

1) The page lies. The stat is derived from lots of things. Something else may have counteracted that.
2) Change may be too small to be reported

This effect did nothing towards income or education. My money's on your second theory.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

This effect did nothing towards income or education. My money's on your second theory.

Like I said, the page lies. HDI is not derived from just those three things.

[Tinhampton]

This effect did nothing towards income or education. My money's on your second theory.

Like I said, the page lies. HDI is not derived from just those three things.

I don't usually say "k den," but if I did, I would do so now.

[Planned Statelessness]

“As far as I can see, homeless people are already a nuisance,” says Doris Flanders, a proud citizen. “They’re mostly thieves and drug addicts, they make the streets a dangerous place for our children, they make honest people feel guilty for turfing them off their doorsteps and, frankly, they smell bad. They’re vermin, plain and simple, and as such I suggest they be destroyed before the infestation gets even more out of hand.”

Citizens who become homeless are immediately executed.

This option led to decrease of my economic output by 3%. Not like I'm complaining, quite on contrary, killing my economy is my goal. I just don't understand why executions of homeless people must have such effect on my economy. This is not like they have money or work.

[SimonMoon]

If an issue choice affirms what the game already knows about you, then it reads as "business as usual" and no change occurs.

I assume this is why when I chose option #1 in issue #008 Nudists Demand Time in Sun, my "Nudity" level didn't change at all.

1. "For too long, our bodies have been trapped in these prisons of cotton and polyester!" yelled protester @@RANDOMNAME@@, while apparently developing a nasty case of sunburn. "We must repeal the puritanical laws that make public nudity a crime. My body--my choice to dangle!"

I'm in the top 13% for Nudity, so I guess the game thinks I'm already nude enough?

[Noahs Second Country]

493.3
Pineapple Fondness Rating 512.60 → 472.80 7.8%

[Luna Amore]

493.3
Pineapple Fondness Rating 512.60 → 472.80 7.8%

Yeah, that looks wrong. I see no mention of the offending code in the original draft thread, so I'll have to do digging later.

[Trotterdam]

I assume this is why when I chose option #1 in issue #008 Nudists Demand Time in Sun, my "Nudity" level didn't change at all.

1. "For too long, our bodies have been trapped in these prisons of cotton and polyester!" yelled protester @@RANDOMNAME@@, while apparently developing a nasty case of sunburn. "We must repeal the puritanical laws that make public nudity a crime. My body--my choice to dangle!"

I'm in the top 13% for Nudity, so I guess the game thinks I'm already nude enough?

Yes, that is correct. I checked your stats, and you're very near the top. You can squeeze out a few more points using secondary effects (increasing Civil Rights, even on subjects unrelated to nudity, will cause a small increase in Nudity), but the only way for you to signicantly increase Nudity from where it is now is to make nudity compulsory.

I've run into this cap long ago.

493.3
Pineapple Fondness Rating 512.60 → 472.80 7.8%

Yeah, that looks wrong. I see no mention of the offending code in the original draft thread, so I'll have to do digging later.

I vague recall having actually argued for this at the time, on the grounds that athletic-performance-enhancing drugs really have nothing in common with the mind-affecting substances that "recreational drugs" normally refer to. The former aren't generally pleasing to take for their own sake, if you're not actually going to be competing in an athletic event, while the latter are unlikely to improve your athletic performance any and would probably make it worse, due to dulling your reflexes and judgement.

Not that that specifically justifies the stat decreasing rather than staying the same, which I assume would have to be attributed to a secondary effect.

---

Here's one from my puppet:

#281 option 4: "electrocution deaths among computer technicians are at an all-time high" -> Death Rate goes down?

[New Phoebe]

Issue 382

Picking option 4. decreases culture by 20 points.

While I totally agree that it should lower this attribute, I was prepared to take a hit at it, it is the amount that seems to be out of place. Maybe a bug (and even if not bug still definitely not nice), since other culture related issues changed the value by usually 2 or 3, sometimes 4 - in very rare cases. While this one has the capability of invalidating every previous decision and instantly throwing Culture down from top 20% to 95%.

This seems buggy especially as Culture, expressed in integer value, doesn't seem like calculated, derived value but simple and straight rating.

[Venetoland]

I just created "sexy recruiting material" for my military, irregardless of gender or sexual orientation. This caused my inclusiveness to drop?!

[Luna Amore]

493.3
Pineapple Fondness Rating 512.60 → 472.80 7.8%

Yeah, that looks wrong. I see no mention of the offending code in the original draft thread, so I'll have to do digging later.

I found where the change was made and why and I it looks like a simple error in implementation. Fixed. I manually corrected your stat on the backend.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I just created "sexy recruiting material" for my military, irregardless of gender or sexual orientation. This caused my inclusiveness to drop?!

As the author of that issue (at that time, as a non-editor), I can report that Lenyo executed that as I intended.

The option reads:

"This isn't right or fair!" blurts out lads-mag journalist @@RANDOMMALENAME@@. "The gay guys have got their jollies, but where's the love for real, I mean straight men? Give us a sexy recruitment video with ladies in uniform in it too! How about some police-women playing with handcuffs, or some lady soldiers straddling really big guns? Come on, we straight guys want our government-approved titillation too!"

If you see that as a pro-inclusiveness option, then you may be missing the obvious subtexts here.

However, as you are using the word "irregardless" without irony, and freely dropping interrobangs, I suspect our thought processes may not be compatible in any way.

[Venetoland]

I accept that as the author of the issue, you know what you intended. However, IMO my interpretation as to it being orientation neutral is valid.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I accept that as the author of the issue, you know what you intended. However, IMO my interpretation as to it being orientation neutral is valid.

Yep, all opinions are valid.

To try to persuade you though, my writing intention here is that you have a self-entitled member of the (normally) dominant gender trying to reframe the issue to say that the government should make hetero porn for him.

To take a parallel example, it's like a white guy in the US saying "whaddya mean black lives matter? what about white lives? the government should set up a fund to make sure that white people get fairly treated by the police?"

Or maybe, it's like an MRA dude taking complaints of objectification of women in video games and saying "well what about how men are depicted? If we're going to deal with this, we should first look at making sure there are no topless or objectified men in videogames, because there are more male characters in video games, so that should be the priority."

Read the option: it's not saying that you're creating material that doesn't pay any attention to gender or sexual orientation. It says that the correct response to gay guys getting titillated is to intentionally set out to make porn for straight guys, with the specific intention of objectifying them for the sexual entertainment of male heterosexual viewers.