NationStates

Far too often I encounter issues where results don't reflect the choices you make and tank your stats.

Why does this issue, where my option is to increase bureaucracy and government size, result in an increase in industry and a big hit for my other stats, including government size?





It's baffling and nonsensical, and especially concerning when issues that increase your stats only increase them at tiny rates, while issues that decrease stats decrease them at much higher rates, effectively mitigating weeks if not months of progress. If anything this discourages answering issues and promoting national growth because certain results make no sense.

Why should safety fall a full 25 points? Why does creating an oversight committee decrease government size? The whole joke of the issue is adding more layers to bureaucracy, is it not? Very poorly designed gameplay.

The Imperium Collectives wrote:Why does this issue, where my option is to increase bureaucracy and government size,

If that's your interpretation of the issue option, you'd read it wrong. Sure, you've set up a bureaucracy but you've tasked it with making some broad cuts across the board - "maybe the government is a teensie bit too big", "solve this with scissors", "examine our budget and see what reasonable cuts can be made".

Sedgistan wrote:

The Imperium Collectives wrote:Why does this issue, where my option is to increase bureaucracy and government size,

If that's your interpretation of the issue option, you'd read it wrong. Sure, you've set up a bureaucracy but you've tasked it with making some broad cuts across the board - "maybe the government is a teensie bit too big", "solve this with scissors", "examine our budget and see what reasonable cuts can be made".

That still doesn't address the stat drops. Why does something like safety decrease by 25 points? Why would this affect, say, patriotism or compliance? A drop in employment, and say, state funded things such as environment or travel or education or defense makes sense. But why does a 3.8% drop in law enforcement create such large safety issues. Why do some things only drop by less than a percent, while others drop by 2-4%? I'm wondering how these are calculated essentially. Moreover, the result of the issue is worded as "the government regularly publishes lengthy reports on its own excessive
recordkeeping.", which only reinforces the idea of expanded bureaucracy, not reduced. I read the writing as being ironic, and I will concede I was wrong, but I hope you can see where the confusion arises from.

And so this is also a problem where the humor and writing in the issues presents problems. "Minister of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Department of the Interior's Interior", surely that implies over-bloated bureaucracy. Yes, the rest of the issue discusses cutting down things, but when the option that would be "not reduce funding" is worded within the context of environmental protection, things are only confused. Sure I'm being pedantic and I understand the need for writing to be creative and interesting, but inevitably confusion can occur.

The Imperium Collectives wrote:

Sedgistan wrote:If that's your interpretation of the issue option, you'd read it wrong. Sure, you've set up a bureaucracy but you've tasked it with making some broad cuts across the board - "maybe the government is a teensie bit too big", "solve this with scissors", "examine our budget and see what reasonable cuts can be made".

That still doesn't address the stat drops. Why does something like safety decrease by 25 points? Why would this affect, say, patriotism or compliance? A drop in employment, and say, state funded things such as environment or travel or education or defense makes sense. But why does a 3.8% drop in law enforcement create such large safety issues. Why do some things only drop by less than a percent, while others drop by 2-4%? I'm wondering how these are calculated essentially. Moreover, the result of the issue is worded as "the government regularly publishes lengthy reports on its own excessive
recordkeeping.", which only reinforces the idea of expanded bureaucracy, not reduced. I read the writing as being ironic, and I will concede I was wrong, but I hope you can see where the confusion arises from.

And so this is also a problem where the humor and writing in the issues presents problems. "Minister of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Department of the Interior's Interior", surely that implies over-bloated bureaucracy. Yes, the rest of the issue discusses cutting down things, but when the option that would be "not reduce funding" is worded within the context of environmental protection, things are only confused. Sure I'm being pedantic and I understand the need for writing to be creative and interesting, but inevitably confusion can occur.

Your safety rating could have been influenced by other factors, but decreasing the law enforcement, welfare, and even public education budgets don't help to increase safety.

Outer Sparta wrote:

The Imperium Collectives wrote:
That still doesn't address the stat drops. Why does something like safety decrease by 25 points? Why would this affect, say, patriotism or compliance? A drop in employment, and say, state funded things such as environment or travel or education or defense makes sense. But why does a 3.8% drop in law enforcement create such large safety issues. Why do some things only drop by less than a percent, while others drop by 2-4%? I'm wondering how these are calculated essentially. Moreover, the result of the issue is worded as "the government regularly publishes lengthy reports on its own excessive
recordkeeping.", which only reinforces the idea of expanded bureaucracy, not reduced. I read the writing as being ironic, and I will concede I was wrong, but I hope you can see where the confusion arises from.

And so this is also a problem where the humor and writing in the issues presents problems. "Minister of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Department of the Interior's Interior", surely that implies over-bloated bureaucracy. Yes, the rest of the issue discusses cutting down things, but when the option that would be "not reduce funding" is worded within the context of environmental protection, things are only confused. Sure I'm being pedantic and I understand the need for writing to be creative and interesting, but inevitably confusion can occur.

Your safety rating could have been influenced by other factors, but decreasing the law enforcement, welfare, and even public education budgets don't help to increase safety.

Yes I know that, I'm asking why does small percent decreases in law enforcement, welfare, education, etc make for such a significant decrease in safety? I'm not expecting it to be increased. I'm wondering about the disparities in percent decreases and how they are exactly calculated.

Here, another prime example of nonsensical issue results I encountered just now. You'd think that investing in moon ventures and protecting lunar territory would result in an increase in, say, Scientific Advancement, Information Technology, Defense, that sort of thing. Patriotism sure, and taxation if obvious, but I really don't understand these odd discrepancies in what is and is not effected by issues.

The Imperium Collectives wrote:Here, another prime example of nonsensical issue results I encountered just now. You'd think that investing in moon ventures and protecting lunar territory would result in an increase in, say, Scientific Advancement, Information Technology, Defense, that sort of thing. Patriotism sure, and taxation if obvious, but I really don't understand these odd discrepancies in what is and is not effected by issues.

(Image)
(Image)

I thought this exact thing when I got that issue and picked the same option lol, at least I know it's not just me

Unrelated to the actual topic at hand. If you want to voice your concerns of stat effects, go to the megathread: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=424650