In President Infinity, the Main Screen in 2.0.4 will have a bit of a different look.
There are a few differences (extending the color bars for each player, making the up-down buttons for players more intuitive, moving the flag image, removing the ‘Step’ information at the bottom), but the most obvious one is the addition of a regional creation HUD on the right side.
This HUD displays information on regional items being created – so, Ballot, Targeting, Org. Strength, Footsoldiers, and Polling – and so makes it easier to keep track of what you’re creating and where.
57 thoughts on “The new Main Screen look”
I really like the new look! If only the update was coming this weekend..I cannot wait!
I agree with Dallas. It looks great!
Thanks for the feedback!
The game is still unplayable. I keep having it glitch and get my out of the game.
Also, for what is playable, it’s is almost impossible to win any of the early states. For instance, I played as Bush and in Florida I ran a modest amount of ads and got 1,2% which is impossible. I understand I might not do well if I don’t spend everyday there, but there should be no reason why I get 1.2% anywhere. This included Iowa and every atte up until Washington. It seems that until Super Tuesday it’s very hard to win.
And for laughs I created a scenario that have me 100 million as bush (not that far off the mark) ran tv ads everyday and still did poorly.
Also debates is a huge problem. We either need an button to keep debate prep on automatic or allow ourselves to opt out of the debates (maybe a screen that pops up before the debate asking if we want to join) with a marginal penalty if we don’t. I just find it excessively tedious to keep hitting the debate prep button. Too many other this to focus on.
These changes look fantastic.
Agree with Doug thought – the glitching is worse than ever.
The option to “opt out of debates”, I like that. And, I agree with Doug regarding continuously hitting the debate button. Often times it does get quite tedious.
Completely agree with you! The early states become nearly impossible to win. I sometimes find myself going back to playing P4E 2008+Primaries just so that I can really enjoy a more “realistic” primary season.
@Doug “The game is still unplayable. I keep having it glitch and get my out of the game.”
Can you say more about this? Does it glitch at a certain point? Is there a message that is given? Can you recreate the glitch in a consistent way?
I might have missed it in an earlier thread or am I just missing it somehow, can an entry for candidate ages be added and shown on their info screen ala P4E 2008?
It’s useful in determining if alternative/fantasy/etc. candidates are someone likely to make a bid that year.
Such as if you use the 2016 campaign to do a stand-in for a 2020 follow up.
The update looks great, Anthony
A minor idea here, but I would suggest changing the “unions” issue to “minimum wage” for 2016, or just make a new issue entirely, since that seems to be getting more attention this campaign cycle.
@Doug – I don’t have a problem winning early states on hard. Maybe you’re just bad at the game. Perhaps there should be a tutorial for you?
I was able to win every state with Scott Walker without running many adds. Things that hurt your percentage are backfiring attack adds, other candidates attacking you, scandals, bad debates, and bad news stories.
@Nick – Not sure whether that was an instructive comment or a condescending remark. I’ve been playing this game for over 7 years, I noticed this change within the last few updates. It’s possible it’s because the amount of candidates that are in the game now and how they are programmed to go to state to state in order which creates a pile on effect if you don’t give it 100% there.
Next time keep your remarks to yourself if you have nothing nice to say.
@anthony_270admin I’ve stopped playing the game because I fear that the game which quit, it usually happens in March (which is unfortunate since I’ve gotten past a lot of the unrealistic primary nonsense and am well on my way to winning the nomination). I can say that it is usually an out of bounds error with one of the actions (not sure which one).
I get that out of bound error as well. It is not game-breaking, but it gets very annoying. I get that when clicking on create a rally. It does not happen until about May of June.
Got an Error
Access violation at address 00014C0F, accessing address 00000004.
When trying to change surrogate Ann Coulter from automatic to barnstorm.
Got another Error
Hitting the Barnstorm button as Marco Rubio then Rally button
List index out of bounds (1)
^^^^ April 3rd
Sanders is gaining in NH: http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/bernie-sanders-climbs-new-hampshire-poll-464639555891
I agree with Jonathan. Sanders is starting off very well drawing huge crowds at his rallies, one in Iowa and another,but i don’t recall what state. I don’t know how you would reflect that. He has also gained some in the polls. Other than that I believe the game is coming along very well and like the new main screen!
Looks like you may need to add Trump. Stay tuned: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/06/16/donald-trump-announcement-president/28782433/
@Jonathan re Trump, yes, he’s now on the list of candidates to add.
@Jonathan and Kevin re Sanders, yes – his numbers were updated in a recent update, and they’ll be updated again. There are now at least two states where it seems competitive in the Dem primares – Vermont and NH. We’ll see if his momentum continues.
So Trump is in fact in the race now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/16/donald-trump-polls_n_7595330.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016
Public Policy Polling released another poll which continues the trend of O’Malley, Chafee and Webb all getting 4-5% nationally. Perhaps their numbers could be increased. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/walker-bush-rubio-lead-gop-field-clinton-still-dominant.html#more
@Doug – It was condescending. After 7 years one would hope that you’d be able to win.
Early states, Iowa and NH are generally easy to win even as low tier candidates. However Florida is broken-I’ve come in with 1-2% despite spending about 15 million in the state with a full HQ. And no, I’m not that bad at the game.
The biggest problem, is that I find myself having to add PIP points to myself. I’ve seen Bush win without winning a primary until march-he just gets everyone else to endorse him
@Nick You’re missing the point but I’m not surprised you can’t comprehend something so simple.
Thanks for this feedback – noted.
@Nick and Doug,
No more back and forth, please. Any further comments along that line will be deleted.
Thanks for this – noted. The Dem %s will be updated soon.
@Steven, thanks for the ‘minimum wage’ issue suggestion, feedback noted.
@Benji, no, candidate ages aren’t in PI. It wasn’t used for anything, except to inform people about how old a candidate was.
I really think the “endorsement” process should be overhauled to a certain extent. There should be a way to replenish PIP.
Additionally, I just had a playthrough where, as Kasich, I won Super Tuesday and stole almost all the momentum in the race and a 200 delegate lead. I had several candidates offering to endorse me, and I distributed PIP to where I had at least a 50% chance with each of them.
They all endorsed Huckabee. There is no universe in which Jeb Bush would endorse Huckabee over a more moderate candidate, especially if Huckabee didn’t have a delegate lead. It’s just unrealistic. My momentum was completely blunted, and Huckabee cruised to an easy nomination.
It’s a problem I’ve noticed in other campaigns, too. If your timing is right, it’s way too easy to secure the endorsement of someone whose ideology is diametrically opposed to yours. Ideology should count for much more than it does, I think.
Outside of reworking the endorsement system, if I had a choice for another way you could branch out in this game, it would be with debates or interviews. Making that process a little more “event-like” and interactive would go a long way… something like choosing your answers during a “live” event.
That said, though, this is a great game, guys. You’ve worked hard to fill a part of the market that’s largely untapped with something that’s really fun to play.
I agree. Unless their relationship is terrible, candidates with similar ideologies should prefer to endorse each other over dissimilar rivals. Provided, of course, similarity is determined on an issue-by-issue basis and not overall because, if I’m recalling correctly, Rand Paul has a similar overall score to Jeb Bush’s, and I can’t imagine either endorsing the other.
One thing to consider, though, is that candidates often have priorities different from those of the population. For example, while abortion is low profile in the game, it would be high (or very high) for Huckabee and Santorum. If it were implemented, it could function as a weight for candidates choosing themes. I can see the game slowing tremendously if it has to do all the profile calculations for 25+ candidates, though.
Here are some of the recent polls.
True, the ages weren’t used for anything but in fantasy scenarios it was mildly useful to go “oh, this guy would be 78 by then” and such to turn them off.
I suppose putting it in the candidate description would suffice, something I’m more than capable of doing with the editor.
I feel awful for being critical with this because it’s such an amazing game, and it’s already so in depth compared to other sims. The big problem is that with a race coming up I think it would be hard to overhaul the game mechanics whilst having to add people, changes % and all the other stuff.
I would love the campaign to use gaffes more-I know it could be unfair but Romney’s 47%, Mccains’ ‘fundamentals’ and Kerry ‘I voted for it before I voted against it’ all helped bury them as candidates. It’s just I often feel the GE is quite managerial
Along with gaffes, I wish CPU candidates would occasionally alter their platform towards the state their focusing on, or to the general population during the General Election. This way a candidate can occasionally get caught flip-flopping. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a CPU candidate do this. Romney and Kerry were also known for flip-flopping.
Is there a way to make color selection for leaders easier? The way you did it on President Forever 2016 made it easy to alter the original selection without varying all too much from the original (aka making the original color slightly darker each time). I realize the solution for me is to just write down the coding numbers — but an easier interface would be nice.
Also, is there going to be an enhanced map editor coming out for President Infinity like there was in President Forever 2008?
Thanks for this feedback re color selection, noted.
Yes, adding a map editing feature for PI is planned. No ETA on it, though.
About candidates endorsing others when dropping out, while I agree that candidate issue priorities are different from those of the population; and in an ideal game, candidates would have their own priorities, candidate priorities would be hard to implement and well below other features I’d like to see.
Yet, that shouldn’t prevent candidate issue positions from having a very large impact on whom they’ll endorse, and even on relations as the game goes on. If you turn Elizabeth Warren on and keep Bernie Sanders on, if Sanders ends up dropping out, he should be far more likely to endorse Warren than to endorse Hillary.
Or, in the Rand Paul example, he wouldn’t find another Republican who agreed with him much on foreign policy, so he’d end up endorsing one who’s far right on issues like Role Of Government and Taxes, where he may be the farthest right candidate of the whole field.
I also agree with replacing Unions with Minimum Wage for 2016. If endorsements could be two-issue, unions would then tend to endorse looking for Left on both that issue and Free Trade (Unions are making an extremely big deal over the TPP). Since that’s unlikely to be possible, the UAW and AFL-CIO might endorse looking for Far Left and Left, respectively, on Free Trade, and other unions for Left on Minimum Wage.
Thanks for this feedback – noted.
Rand Paul’s average issue position is misleading, because all issues are unidimensional (left-right), whereas the libertarian option really doesn’t map straightforwardly to a left-right continuum.
I believe the game currently uses a cumulative distance variable for determining similarity, not an average (so, going issue by issue and adding up the distance between two candidates).
Yes, it seems more weight should be given to platform similarity – endorsers will probably be tweaked in an upcoming update.
@Tyler re endorsement system, yes, the endorsement system could use some modifications, we’ll see. Thanks for this.
Would it be possible to research scandals on vice-presidential candidates?
How do I get an updated demo of the game?
Never mind. I found it. The way things are going now it looks extremely interesting.
Why isn’t the demo updated with the candidates confirmed running and candidates like Fiorina, Graham, Sanders and Chafee?
It’s all looking good!
I’ve said it before though and I’ll say it again…
The screen resolution URGENTLY needs expanding!
Thanks for this feedback – yes, on certain systems, the windows are relatively small. It’s something that will be looked at.
There is no demo of President Infinity currently available.
@Eric re scandals on Veep candidates,
It’s a good idea – we’ll see.