Idea:(Anti)-subscriptions to thematic issues

[UtilityLand]

Idea:(Anti)-subscriptions to thematic issues

What if group issues in themes (and there is possible overlapping, i.e. the same issue can be in different themes)? Like all issues concerning rights of women are placed in theme "feminism" and nations can choose to receive issues primarily/no issues from this theme. So people who are interested in feminism (no matter if they think good or bad about it) would be able to shape their nations' stance on feminism, while people who aren't interested in feminism would be able to recieve more interesting issues. There also would be neutral issues, that are neither in subscribed nor anti-subscribed themes, they would have normal chance to happen.

Of course it would be dull to only allow one (anti)-subscription. There would possibility to have several (anti)-subscriptions at the same time. Like you can be subscribed to "feminism", meaning that you would have greater chance to receive issues about rights of women or males (while other issues also can arrive) and anti-subscribed to "military", meaning that you would not get any (except one case that I will discuss below) issues related to military.

Although if we allow themes to overlap, then what should we do if the same issue is both in subscribed and anti-subscribed themes? I think that if we want to keep to as simple as possible, then membership in anti-subscribed theme should be ignored as long as the issue is a member of at the least one subscribed theme. Like you will get with higher probability an issue related both to feminism and military if you are subscribed to "feminism" and anti-subscribed to "military". If we are OK with additional sophistication, then we could allow user to manually assign different priorities to subscriptions and anti-subscriptions. In case of "conflict" one (anti)subscription that has higher priority wins. For example, lets assume that we are subscribed to "feminism" and "LGBT", while anti-subscribed to "military". It happens that potential new issue related to feminism, LGBT and military. Subscription to feminism has priority #1, anti-subscription to military has priority #2, subscription to LGBT has priority #3. It means that we will get, with higher probability, an issue about LGBT, unless it's also about military (military beats LGBT), although in cases when it's related to feminism we will still get the issue (feminism beats military).

[West Leas Oros]

Idea:(Anti)-subscriptions to thematic issues

What if group issues in themes (and there is possible overlapping, i.e. the same issue can be in different themes)? Like all issues concerning rights of women are placed in theme "feminism" and nations can chose to receive issues primarily/no issues from this theme. So people who are interested in feminism (no matter if they think good or bad about it) would be able to shape their nations' stance on feminism, while people who aren't interested in feminism would be able to recieve more interesting issues. There also would be neutral issues, that are neither in subscribed nor anti-subscribed themes, they would have normal chance to happen.

Of course it would be dull to only allow one (anti)-subscription. There would possibility to have several (anti)-subscriptions at the same time. Like you can be subscribed to "feminism", meaning that you would have greater chance to receive issues about right of women (while other issues also can arrive) and anti-subscribed to "military", meaning that you would not get any (except one case that I will discuss below) issues related to military.

Although if we allow themes to overlap, then what should we do if the same issue is both in subscribed and anti-subscribed themes? I think that if we want to keep to as simple as possible, then membership in anti-subscribed theme should be ignored as long as the issue is a member of at the least one subscribed theme. Like you will get with higher probability an issue related both to feminism and military if you are subscribed to "feminism" and anti-subscribed to "military". If we are OK with additional sophistication, then we could allow user to manually assign different priorities to subscriptions and anti-subscriptions. In case of "conflict" one (anti)subscription that has higher priority wins. For example, lets assume that we are subscribed to "feminism" and "LGBT", while anti-subscribed to "military". It happens that potential new issue related to feminism, LGBT and military. Subscription to feminism has priority #1, anti-subscription to military has priority #2, subscription to LGBT has priority #3. It means that we will get, with higher probability, an issue about LGBT, unless it's also about military (military beats LGBT), although in cases when it's related to feminism we will still get the issue (feminism beats military).

How would it be implemented?

[FreedLymonia]

I like this idea.

[Aikoland]

I feel like this idea would both require way too much coding to implement and go against the whole 'issues are assigned randomly from a pool of issues that your nation meets the requirements to receive' concept the issue side of the game is based upon.

I mean sure, it isn't a full-on 'Players should be able to choose what issues they get', but letting players choose issue topics to focus on does feel like it'd be leaning towards that.

[UtilityLand]

How would it be implemented?

I think it would need efforts of editors. Namely they would need to overview supposed effects of existing issues and place each issue in different theme. For example, "Give Us Pockets or Give Us Something Else" would probably belong to theme "feminism" because one of its options allows discrimination of women, namely compulsory nudism only for women.

If there are issues that can't be plausible placed to any theme, then they just remain theme-less. They would always be neutral issues. Although if you are neither subscribed nor anti-subscribed to thematic issues, then said thematic issues would also be neutral ones (until you either subscribe or anti-subscribe to them).

As for spoiling suprising effects of issues, I think it's possible for system to just remain silent about reason why we got the issue. Thus there could be (at the least theoretically) some air of mystery about an issue, "does it belong to pool of neutral issues or it belongs to one of subscribed themes?". Like if we subscribed to feminism we can receive an issue that at first glance has nothing to do with feminism ("it must be a neutral issue"), but one of its options has suprising change in rights of males or females ("Now I understand why I got it, it's probably from feminism theme").

If you don't receive an issue because it was filtered out by anti-subscription, then system selects another issue for you instead.

[UtilityLand]

I feel like this idea would both require way too much coding to implement and go against the whole 'issues are assigned randomly from a pool of issues that your nation meets the requirements to receive' concept the issue side of the game is based upon.

I mean sure, it isn't a full-on 'Players should be able to choose what issues they get', but letting players choose issue topics to focus on does feel like it'd be leaning towards that.

The most conservative approach is to implement only anti-subscriptions realized as autodismissal, when if you receive thematic issues from your anti-subscription list of themes then it's just automaticaly dismissed. It would just allow a player to avoid need for manual dismissal of unwanted issues.

[USS Monitor]

I think this would make it too easy for people to manipulate stats.

Issues are supposed to manipulate stats, but it's supposed to be a challenge if you have a specific stat you want.

[UtilityLand]

I think this would make it too easy for people to manipulate stats.

Issues are supposed to manipulate stats, but it's supposed to be a challenge if you have a specific stat you want.

Easy. Do you want a challenge? Then don't use neither subscriptions nor anti-subscriptions (i.e. let all issues be neutral)

As for competition, everybody would have the same ability to influence stats, thus it would be fair.

[Phydios]

I think this would make it too easy for people to manipulate stats.

Issues are supposed to manipulate stats, but it's supposed to be a challenge if you have a specific stat you want.

Easy. Do you want a challenge? Then don't use neither subscriptions nor anti-subscriptions (i.e. let all issues be neutral)

As for competition, everybody would have the same ability to influence stats, thus it would be fair.

I think you missed Monitor's point. The staff don't want anyone to be able to manipulate stats easily. It's supposed to be a challenge for everyone. If you want specific stats, roleplay them or slowly build them up through issues.

[UtilityLand]

I think you missed Monitor's point. The staff don't want anyone to be able to manipulate stats easily. It's supposed to be a challenge for everyone. If you want specific stats, roleplay them or slowly build them up through issues.

But why? I don't see any harm in letting people to manipulate stats more easily with (anti)subscriptions. It would allow players to shape interesting to them game-mechanical aspects of their nations, while avoiding boring ones. It would give players more choices, making gameplay more interesting for some players, more dynamic.

[Lord Dominator]

I think you missed Monitor's point. The staff don't want anyone to be able to manipulate stats easily. It's supposed to be a challenge for everyone. If you want specific stats, roleplay them or slowly build them up through issues.

But why? I don't see any harm in letting people to manipulate stats more easily with (anti)subscriptions. It would allow players to shape interesting to them game-mechanical aspects of their nations, while avoiding boring ones. It would give players more choices, making gameplay more interesting for some players, more dynamic.

The harm would be that it naturally benefits those who's sole desire is to get the top score in a particular stat, when staff have been very clear in the past that they want no more benefits than can be naturally gained from simple issue answering.
They've repeatedly shot down thoughts of being able to get more issues of one type, of which this idea is pretty similar to, in other words.

[UtilityLand]

The harm would be that it naturally benefits those who's sole desire is to get the top score in a particular stat

How is it harmful? Everyone would be in the same boat. If one nation can use this to raise its stats, then other nations would be able to do it as well.

[Phydios]

The harm would be that it naturally benefits those who's sole desire is to get the top score in a particular stat

How is it harmful? Everyone would be in the same boat. If one nation can use this to raise its stats, then other nations would be able to do it as well.

Look, the staff can actually speak with authority on this matter, but until someone gets here...it's quite simple. They don't want players to be able to easily manipulate their game stats. That's not the kind of game they want to make. There should be some difficulty in making a nation just the way you want. This kind of idea is pretty consistently shot down.

[UtilityLand]

That's not the kind of game they want to make. There should be some difficulty in making a nation just the way you want.

By slowing everything down? What a "bright" idea! The not-very-predictable stats engine already makes the game hard enough, there is no point in adding artificial difficulty.

[Lord Dominator]

That's not the kind of game they want to make. There should be some difficulty in making a nation just the way you want.

By slowing everything down? What a "bright" idea! The not-very-predictable stats engine already makes the game hard enough, there is no point in adding artificial difficulty.

False. The stats engine can be quite predictable, you just need to learn how the stuff works

[Aclion]

That's not the kind of game they want to make. There should be some difficulty in making a nation just the way you want.

By slowing everything down? What a "bright" idea! The not-very-predictable stats engine already makes the game hard enough, there is no point in adding artificial difficulty.

It's not a matter of slowing things down. Devs have decided that the game should be played by making political decisions by answering issues, and want to avoid making it possible to outplay that by using settings to metagame with your issue set.

Autodismissal was brought up. Provided that auto dismissing the issues acted like regular dismissal and didn't increase your chance of getting another issue then I can see that working. Though rather then having it set by topic as was suggested I'd have it specific to that issue number, since doing it by topic still allows for some amount of metagaming, [you won't be surprised by unfamiliar issues anymore, and it can be used to deconstruct some of what going on behind the scenes] and it means that there's not need to maintain a list of which issues are associated with which topic.

[Goldenmouth]

That's not the kind of game they want to make. There should be some difficulty in making a nation just the way you want.

By slowing everything down? What a "bright" idea! The not-very-predictable stats engine already makes the game hard enough, there is no point in adding artificial difficulty.

Just because you don't do well in the issues game doesn't mean the game should be changed to accommodate you. Many players are successful in rising in the World Census rankings without any help; be like us.

[UtilityLand]

False. The stats engine can be quite predictable, you just need to learn how the stuff works

Oh, really? For example, in one of my countries I was killing my economy on purpose. Then I encountered an issue about political protestors and decided to crack on them down. To my suprise, it significantly rised my economy, although it seemed for me that it had nothing to do with economy. Then I figured out what happened. By cracking down on the protestors I decreased political freedoms. By decreasing political freedoms I increased corruption. By increasing corruption I increased my "Black market". My economy had only two sectors, "Government" (economically sterile sector from POV of game. Not confuse with state-run industry) and "Black market", thus in fact it was "Black market" that was doing real economic activity (despite its small size compared to "Government"). Thus by increasing "Black market" I increased my economy, because for my country "Black market" was equal to "Economy".

Another time I chose to start killing the homeless. Suprisingly it increased happiness. Then I figured out that by killing the homeless I decrease number of unhappy people, thus making ratio happy/unhappy better.

Just because you don't do well in the issues game doesn't mean the game should be changed to accommodate you. Many players are successful in rising in the World Census rankings without any help; be like us.

Even if you more or less know what to do, it's quite frustrating to receive issues that are completely uninteresting to you instead of relevant ones.

[UtilityLand]

It's not a matter of slowing things down. Devs have decided that the game should be played by making political decisions by answering issues, and want to avoid making it possible to outplay that by using settings to metagame with your issue set.

"Outplay"? "Metagame"? What are you talking about? I don't see how it would allow metagaming or how it would allow to raise stats without answering issues.

There is what I said about avoiding spoilers:

As for spoiling suprising effects of issues, I think it's possible for system to just remain silent about reason why we got the issue. Thus there could be (at the least theoretically) some air of mystery about an issue, "does it belong to pool of neutral issues or it belongs to one of subscribed themes?". Like if we subscribed to feminism we can receive an issue that at first glance has nothing to do with feminism ("it must be a neutral issue"), but one of its options has suprising change in rights of males or females ("Now I understand why I got it, it's probably from feminism theme").

[Goldenmouth]

Even if you more or less know what to do, it's quite frustrating to receive issues that are completely uninteresting to you instead of relevant ones.

It's not very frustrating for me. I am patient and can wait for relevant issues to come along.