Advertisement
by Drongonia » Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:50 pm
The Republic of Drongonia
The MT powerhouse of Oceania. New Zealand but richer.
Overview | Political Parties | Our Leader | Defence Force Info | 9axes | Faces of Drongonia | Drongonia - The Man Behind the Spreadsheet
by SherpDaWerp » Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:52 pm
by The Free Joy State » Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:14 pm
Drongonia wrote:I've got a civil rights issue that I don't think is covered in the FAQ. In issue #1095 (Make the Cut), which revolves around the mowing of the small grass strip outside your house - giving people the ownership of the extra land (option 3) reduces their civil rights.
Not by much I must admit, but why? I would imagine that giving people control of that land would give you more rights. It even says in the one-liner "grumpy old house owners demand that pedestrians get off their footpaths".
by The Panlannerkalisiang » Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:00 am
by SherpDaWerp » Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:09 pm
The Panlannerkalisiang wrote:I got rid of the VAT (value-added tax) and my taxation went up 1%.
That is option 1 in issues #780
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:- Why didn't tax fall when an option described a corporation tax cut / sales tax cut?
The tax model of the game is very simplistic, and it basically abstracts all spending as income tax and doesn't take into account any idea of government borrowing, deficit spending or tax from sources other than income tax.
That gives us limited tools for simulation.
Corporation tax is rolled into business subsidisation, with lowering of corporate tax representing an effective business subsidisation, and a shifting of tax burden onto the income taxpayer.
Sales tax and VAT, meanwhile, move income tax inversely, as raising more revenue from these forms of taxation decreases the burden on income tax, and vice versa.
This isn't entirely satisfactory, of course, as it means that the descriptions of "Freedom From Taxation" on the graphs aren't accurate, but it's reflective of how the game engine is written and of the simulation's limitations. It basically isn't possible to have burden of taxation and income tax move in opposite directions, as in the simulation all measured tax = income tax.
by Tuluseria » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:39 pm
by The Free Joy State » Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:43 pm
Tuluseria wrote:- The name of the nation that had this effect: Tuluseria
- The day that this effect was encountered: 1 Day, 9 Hours ago, so like, ~Noon 11/30/19
- The name of the issue, and if you know it, the number of the issue: #685 Externalities Palmed Off
I chose to upgrade to a high-tech infrastructure of domed cities, impervious to atmospheric conditions. Somehow this dramatically increased my primitiveness and dramatically reduced my scientific advancement. Surely this was in error?
by Tuluseria » Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:07 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Tuluseria wrote:- The name of the nation that had this effect: Tuluseria
- The day that this effect was encountered: 1 Day, 9 Hours ago, so like, ~Noon 11/30/19
- The name of the issue, and if you know it, the number of the issue: #685 Externalities Palmed Off
I chose to upgrade to a high-tech infrastructure of domed cities, impervious to atmospheric conditions. Somehow this dramatically increased my primitiveness and dramatically reduced my scientific advancement. Surely this was in error?
No. Both primitiveness and scientific advancement are secondary stats (relating to a range of backstage stat effects interacting with your own nation). The effects can vary based on your own personal stats.
The issue is working as intended.
by The Free Joy State » Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:21 pm
Tuluseria wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:No. Both primitiveness and scientific advancement are secondary stats (relating to a range of backstage stat effects interacting with your own nation). The effects can vary based on your own personal stats.
The issue is working as intended.
I mean, what's the intention then? Shouldn't converting to domed cities increase scientific advancement and decrease primitiveness under all circumstances? I mean I know the hypothesis space is infinite but it's not like I'd be deconverting from a Kardashev II civilization or something; I don't think the game allows a nation to become that sophisticated. What backstage stat effects can justify a decrease of scientific advancement and an increase of primitiveness when choosing an obviously super high tech choice? It's game breaking.
by Tuluseria » Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:37 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Tuluseria wrote:
I mean, what's the intention then? Shouldn't converting to domed cities increase scientific advancement and decrease primitiveness under all circumstances? I mean I know the hypothesis space is infinite but it's not like I'd be deconverting from a Kardashev II civilization or something; I don't think the game allows a nation to become that sophisticated. What backstage stat effects can justify a decrease of scientific advancement and an increase of primitiveness when choosing an obviously super high tech choice? It's game breaking.
We don't reveal our backstage effects. Ever. We're not allowed to, for one thing.
And it isn't "game-breaking". The changes were fairly small. You can recover by continuing to answer other issues.
The answer you have received is the only answer available for this query.
by TalAkMaChen » Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:44 am
by The Free Joy State » Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:31 pm
Tuluseria wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:We don't reveal our backstage effects. Ever. We're not allowed to, for one thing.
And it isn't "game-breaking". The changes were fairly small. You can recover by continuing to answer other issues.
The answer you have received is the only answer available for this query.
Oh, I didn't know there was any privileged information involved. The size of the changes and the secrecy of the information doesn't stop it from being game-breaking, though. It made far less than zero sense. It reduces confidence in the essential character of the system. You say I can recover by continuing to answer other issues, but how will I know if it's safe to select the obviously high tech answer? I cannot.
by Socialist State of LAY » Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:38 am
by Lord Dominator » Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:08 am
by Bears Armed » Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:44 am
Lord Dominator wrote:According to Trotterdam's stuff, if I'm reading it correctly, a corruption change happens essentially everytime with that option, with the average being a very tiny positive change.
Edit: that is to say, a corruption increase is pretty usual, and your change is incredibly tiny anyways.
by The Free Joy State » Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:01 pm
Socialist State of LAY wrote:Issue 961, why did the corruption go up? Never happened before.
by Roumberre » Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:38 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:18 am
Roumberre wrote:This nation.
Just now.
Issue # 210 'Going Postal'.
Option 3: The government relinquishing its postal monopoly somehow increased the size of government...
Surely relinquishing the monopoly should mean that it employs a smaller proportion of the nation's postal workers and thus, if it has any effect on this stat at all, reduce government size?
by Roumberre » Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:51 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Roumberre wrote:This nation.
Just now.
Issue # 210 'Going Postal'.
Option 3: The government relinquishing its postal monopoly somehow increased the size of government...
Surely relinquishing the monopoly should mean that it employs a smaller proportion of the nation's postal workers and thus, if it has any effect on this stat at all, reduce government size?
The option talks about increasing taxes to cope with losses to competition. I know that's not super-coherent, but the option seems pretty clear that spending on the postal service is going to increase rather than decrease.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:48 am
by Fauxia » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:02 pm
by Candlewhisper Archive » Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:52 am
by Fauxia » Mon Dec 09, 2019 3:52 pm
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
Interesting point. I was thinking more in terms of euthanasia lowering the average lifespan.
Unfortunately there's no way to have both outcomes - lifespan moves with health. I think given the tools, I'd probably say lifespan should drop while average health increases, and there are fudges I could do to make that happen, but those fudges would produce unexpected effects elsewhere.
All in all, I think lowering lifespan is the way to go, as you could argue that the presence and willingness to use euthanasia will lead to more people rejecting treatment, and being relatively unwell when they could have been healthier.
by Aqualagoon » Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:39 pm
by Iguanarctica » Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:19 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement