President Forever 2016 v. 1.6.3 Test Release 1 Released!

This update includes the first release with the ‘enter at variable times’ feature (more info below), significant updates to 1912, fixes a bug where all players focused scandals on player with highest percentages, regardless of party (so, in 2016 all would focus on H. Clinton), increases Christie’s Corruption rating, removes McDonnell, and does a bunch of behind the scenes GUI work moving the game towards cross-platform (Windows and Mac).

Credits: thanks to Jonathan Hobratsch for significant contributions on the 1912 campaign.

How the ‘enter at variable times’ feature works: there are 3 campaign types, Official, Undecided, and Not Seeking. When a player starts a new game in primaries, they can select the campaign type for each player. These can also be set to default values in the Campaign Editor.

If a player is Official, it is the same as before. If it is Undecided, they are unable to do key actions like make ads, but any ad attacks against them are at half power. If it is Not Seeking, they can only view data, but other computer players will not attack them. If a player is Undecided, at any time they can click a button on the Players Info Screen to officially enter the campaign. If a player is Not Seeking, at any time they can click a button to form an exploratory committee and so move to Undecided.

One significant issue remaining is how to handle Undecided or Not Seeking and ballots – should players that start in undecided not be on any ballots? Do they have to be official to get on a ballot? The other significant issue is how to handle how computer players decide to join the game – this function has not been completed, and currently any undecided computer players have a 1% chance of joining the primaries on a given turn. There are some other ends that need to be tidied up on this feature.

Feedback welcome!

This is a Test Release, not an official release. You can download a Test Release by requesting a re-download e-mail at the link below. When you receive the e-mail, you will have both a President Forever 2016 link and a President Forever 2016 Test Release link. You will want to download the file from the Test Release link.

Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter!

To update:

http://270soft.com/updates-redownloads/

Version information:

http://270soft.com/updates-redownloads/president-forever-2016-version-information/

58 Responses to President Forever 2016 v. 1.6.3 Test Release 1 Released!

  1. Craig February 3, 2014 at 3:17 pm #

    Money obviously plays a big issue. I think if you are declared you have the advantage of raising money in larger amounts then if your candidacy is not announced.

    Not sure if you can code this, but when a campaign shift from exploratory > official, there should be a bump in fundraising. For example:

    Exploratory Fundraising .5 (1/2) amount raising ability when an official candidate. Exploratory > Official Campaign 1.5 for 30 days. After 30 days fundraising goes back to normal declared candidate 1.0 (normal).

  2. Craig February 3, 2014 at 3:25 pm #

    Oh and when you are not declared. Your fundraising ability is dependent on your current stature (Senator, Governor, Congressman, Media mogul). This way it doesn’t limit your ability to do nothing but integrates other aspects into the game.

    In the editor, before you enter in the name of the candidate you have “title”. You can replace that with a drop down of choices.

    -U.S Senator
    -U.S Congressman
    -Governor
    -Lieutenant Governor
    -State Representative
    -Other

    And code the fundraising coefficient with each position.

  3. Jonathan February 3, 2014 at 3:56 pm #

    I’d like to see some sort of marker in the poll%s that says who has declared, maybe italicize the names of those not officially in the race.

    Currently simming with all the candidates on undeclared except for two candidates. And Green (me). Seeing how it plays through

  4. Craig February 3, 2014 at 4:20 pm #

    For a candidate to go from undecided > declared, I would set it by probability of winning anything over 15% maybe? Or a high enough number to be practical but a low enough number to account for the dark horses who do take a risk but aren’t likely to win.

  5. anthony_270admin February 3, 2014 at 4:20 pm #

    @Craig “I think if you are declared you have the advantage of raising money in larger amounts then if your candidacy is not announced.”

    This is a good idea.

  6. anthony_270admin February 3, 2014 at 4:21 pm #

    @Jonathan “I’d like to see some sort of marker in the poll%s that says who has declared, maybe italicize the names of those not officially in the race.”

    Another good idea.

  7. anthony_270admin February 3, 2014 at 4:26 pm #

    @Craig re undecided -> declared,

    Ya, maybe if they are above 5% in a poll somewhere, the chance starts to increase – something like that.

  8. Jonathan February 3, 2014 at 6:20 pm #

    I don’t think candidates that haven’t declared should be on the ballot. If they are, it should be far less than their poll %s suggest, as they’d probably be write-in candidates if they aren’t declared.

  9. Jonah February 3, 2014 at 6:56 pm #

    While I really like the feature of “undecided” candidates, I think it needs to be less likely for them to enter the race (I had a campaign with every 2016 candidate on undecided, and ultimately, all but two of them entered the race).

    Similar to other opinions above, undecided candidates really shouldn’t receive votes (or, at least, as many votes) in the primaries like regular candidates. I played 1968, and Romney won the GOP nomination even though he never officially declared.

    Additionally, having candidates receive delegates without being declared sort of takes away from their the dramatic entry into the race that shakes up the poll numbers (think-Perry entering in 2012 and taking from Bachmann, RFK from McCarthy, etc-this feature would be even more nuanced if there was a way to simulate support from different voting groups, like moderates, social issue voters, different minorities, but that’s aside the point).

    On a minor note, I’ve been experiencing candidates dropping out, and then “officially entering the race”. They never end showing up in the polls, but it is a technical glitch.

  10. Jonathan February 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm #

    New CNN poll is out: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    I’m hoping when the poll #s are updated it will reflect closer to the current numbers. I think it’s also safe to move Huckabee closer to the front on the list of candidates. Bush, also.

    Clinton also beats all Republicans by at least 15 pts in this poll.

  11. anthony_270admin February 3, 2014 at 7:25 pm #

    “I don’t think candidates that haven’t declared should be on the ballot. If they are, it should be far less than their poll %s suggest, as they’d probably be write-in candidates if they aren’t declared.”

    Intuitively, I think this is right. However, it means that starting Undecided means a lot of work to get on all the ballots. So, human players might view this as too large an obstacle and never choose the option.

  12. anthony_270admin February 3, 2014 at 7:27 pm #

    @Jonah re undecided candidates getting votes,

    Thanks for this – I agree – I think the answer is that they don’t start on the ballot anywhere (as Jonathan suggested above), and can only work to get on the ballot once they’re official. However, I think this also opens up too large of a difference between Undecideds and Official candidates structurally. Perhaps the answer is to start all players off the ballot, regardless.

  13. anthony_270admin February 3, 2014 at 7:28 pm #

    @Jonathan re Huckabee,

    Thanks – noted.

  14. Craig February 3, 2014 at 8:12 pm #

    Ok I just played through, various things.

    Very confusing between figuring out who’s declared, undecided, not seeking. There should be a filing deadline for each state. After a certain deadline, candidates who have not declared should be removed.

    I’m pretty sure there were candidates on the ballot who were not seeking, since I set most of them to that and only 1/4 actually declared.

    I love the feature. One way to deal with this is to put the polling #’s in the headlines. “CNN Primary poll, Christie 22, Rubio 21% …”

  15. Jonathan February 3, 2014 at 8:12 pm #

    @Anthony
    Two questions.
    1. I think the undecided feature should be realistic, even if it makes the game more difficult, which, by the way, many experienced fans of your game may like.
    2. Would RFK win delegates if he isn’t official? If so, does.that reflect reality/history?
    3. Have a 3rd question. Can CPU controlled players form exploratory committees or are they considered off if not.running?

  16. anthony_270admin February 3, 2014 at 8:30 pm #

    @Jonathan,

    1. Yes, I think it makes sense to start Undecided candidates off the ballots. My main question is whether it makes sense to also start Official candidates off the ballot as well. This is something that would probably vary depending on the campaign starting date.

    2. RFK would only win candidates if he was on the ballot in a given state. If it’s changed so Undecided candidates don’t start on the ballot, then he wouldn’t win delegates in state primaries unless he became Official and got on the ballot there. I don’t know how this maps up with the actual 1968 campaign.

    3. Computer players don’t change from Not Seeking to Undecided. What I am planning to do is add a setting to the events engine that allows campaign designers to set an event that causes a player to move to Undecided. For example, in 1968 RFK’s assassination might cause McGovern to move from Not Seeking to Undecided.

  17. anthony_270admin February 3, 2014 at 8:33 pm #

    @Craig,

    Thanks for this feedback.

    “I’m pretty sure there were candidates on the ballot who were not seeking, since I set most of them to that and only 1/4 actually declared.”

    Yes, currently candidates who start Not Seeking are included on the ballot – that will change.

  18. Jonathan February 3, 2014 at 9:24 pm #

    @Anthony

    Oh, okay. I’d start 3rd parties and fringe candidiates off the ballot, unless they’re guaranteed certain states. For instance, Dr. Carson by Oct 2015 might not have his name on all the ballots, possibly the same with Grayson; although, I think congress people generally would. I also think, Bernie Sanders, Bloomberg, wouldn’t start with all the ballots. Overall, I don’t think any candidate should be off a ballot unless they really were off the ballot at the time of the game.

    I like the feature that would allow Humphrey to move to undecided if RFK is shot.

    WIll see how 1968 plays out with the changes.

  19. Jonathan February 4, 2014 at 12:28 am #

    Is it possible to allow more than 3 news blurbs in the paper? I feel like some important stuff gets knocked out by scandals. I think anyone jumping in the race, or any major political figure endorsing someone, should be mentioned in the paper, even if there are three 6pt scandals going on. It might involve totally reconstructing the news paper. Maybe make the headline be the largest news item at the top center, and then have news sections on the screen, one area would list jumping in/dropping out/endorsements another has primary results/debate winners. One is for top scandals. And the last one can be random….speech/surrogate movements/historical events. Just an idea.

  20. Jonathan February 4, 2014 at 6:25 pm #

    @Anthony

    I think there should be some sort of penalty if someone waits too long to jump in, for instance, their poll #s should start decreasing, as people are assuming they won’t jump in.

    I also think that candidates that jump in when the front runner gets a +9 scandal should get a huge momentum boost if they’re the top candidate for their party that is NOT in the race.

    I don’t think candidates should get delegates if they aren’t in the race, except maybe in the pre-1968 scenarios.

    I also think there should be a new drop down trait with a 1 through 5 number that shows the likelihood that they’ll jump in the race, and another for the likelihood that they’ll stay in the race.

    I think the exploratory committee should be newsworthy, we only find out if a candidate jumps in. I’d like to know which opponent is moving closer to jumping in.

    And again, italicizing the people not in. Oh, and also showing a map of the poll#s and states involving only those in the race, would be nice.

    Somehow Perot will have to be able to drop out and go back in.

    On another note, with the Explore candidacy button and the Declare button, you could add, form 3rd party.

  21. Jonathan February 4, 2014 at 7:04 pm #

    I had someone jump into the race after the General Election started.

  22. POTUS February 5, 2014 at 8:09 am #

    @Jonathan

    Yes more than 3 news blurbs would be wonderful!

  23. Jonathan February 5, 2014 at 2:21 pm #

    It would be useful, especially if the primaries go from day-to-day to week-to-week

  24. BHazlewood February 7, 2014 at 4:03 pm #

    For undeclared candidates, I think they should be OFF the ballots in primary states, and ON the ballot for caucus states. However, in order to “ease the burden” on human players declaring late, I would have them go on the ballot of all primary states where the primary is more than 14 (7? Some other number?) days in the future.

  25. Dallas February 8, 2014 at 11:30 am #

    After updating to this version, I noticed after a turn, when a candidate is going to endorse/withdraw, the game “pauses” then shows who endorsed who or who withdrew. All of the other turns do not pause except the turns when a candidate endorses or withdraws. Weird.

  26. POTUS February 8, 2014 at 12:00 pm #

    I think it would be really useful if more was done to show when a primary is.

    For instance, during the Turn Summary page, it shows when a primary is, but has them in Alphabetical order instead of Chronological order. I think it would be really helpful if it showed them in chronological order.

    Also, it would be great if on the Run Ad Screen it showed the date of each primary next to the state.

  27. anthony_270admin February 8, 2014 at 3:10 pm #

    @BHazlewood, “For undeclared candidates, I think they should be OFF the ballots in primary states, and ON the ballot for caucus states.”

    The way it is in the latest internal is that undecideds are off the ballot in all primaries-caucuses, but there is a highscore bonus of +5 for starting in undecided mode.

  28. anthony_270admin February 8, 2014 at 3:12 pm #

    @Dallas, “After updating to this version, I noticed after a turn, when a candidate is going to endorse/withdraw, the game “pauses” then shows who endorsed who or who withdrew.”

    Thanks – I’ve experienced this as well while playing – at some point, I’ll look at why it’s pausing.

  29. anthony_270admin February 8, 2014 at 3:14 pm #

    @POTUS,

    I agree – it would be nice to make it easier to see the upcoming primaries beyond going to the Strategy Screen. We’ll see.

  30. kevin February 8, 2014 at 7:50 pm #

    I think that when a candidate announces that he is running there should be a momentum swing ( Perry in 2012) and the other candidates find a way to knock him down

  31. kevin February 8, 2014 at 8:40 pm #

    I don’t know if you have even thought about this but Jimmy Fallen will be the tonight show host instead of jay leno

  32. kevin February 8, 2014 at 9:07 pm #

    Also can you make it to where you can get the undecided candidates to endorse you?

  33. benji February 9, 2014 at 4:30 am #

    “Thanks – I’ve experienced this as well while playing – at some point, I’ll look at why it’s pausing.”

    This is in as far back as 1.6.1 if that might help track it down.

    It’s actually kinda nice in an unintentional way. It’s like everything stops for a BIG ANNOUNCEMENT COMING. And then some favorite son with two delegates is dropping out.

    Or occasionally a big name drops out unexpectedly and it’s worth the hype!

  34. Aaron February 9, 2014 at 9:11 pm #

    On my first play of 1968:

    Wallace is taking away primarily from the Democratic ticket. In actuality, he took much more of the vote away from Nixon in the generals. Humphrey did better than Nixon in 2 of the 5 states that Wallace carried. Erasing Wallace’s votes in those states leaves a very close secondary race. While playing through 1968, I have noticed that you have set it to take away almost exclusively from the Democrat rather than the Republican.

    In all, the Democrat should be much stronger in states such as Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana and Arkansas. While it should be virtually impossible mathematically for a Democrat to have carried Alabama in 1968 with Wallace, the Democrat should still be stronger in these states. Wallace is playing accurately strongly in these states, however the Democrat seems to be too weak, and the Republican too strong.

  35. Jonathan February 9, 2014 at 10:07 pm #

    @Aaron

    Yeah, I mentioned this once, too. Democrats would have carried those states without Wallace.

  36. anthony_admin February 10, 2014 at 4:15 pm #

    @Jonathan,

    Ya – Kasich, Huckabee, and Dean should be added to the candidates.

  37. Jonathan February 10, 2014 at 4:30 pm #

    Awesome. Huckabee is already there.

  38. anthony_admin February 10, 2014 at 4:40 pm #

    @Aaron,

    Thanks for this feedback re 1968 – noted.

  39. anthony_admin February 10, 2014 at 4:42 pm #

    @Kevin re Tonight Show

    Thanks for this!

  40. anthony_admin February 10, 2014 at 4:44 pm #

    “when a candidate announces that he is running there should be a momentum swing ( Perry in 2012) and the other candidates find a way to knock him down”

    Currently, there is a news story when a candidate enters the race, which gives a bit of momentum, but I think some of the electoral dynamics involved in this are difficult to simulate with the game engine as stands. Something like demographic blocks, with Favorability ratings for the various candidates, would allow for modeling what happens in these sorts of cases.

  41. KM February 10, 2014 at 4:49 pm #

    I’m just curious when the 2014 Congress game will be released.

  42. anthony_admin February 10, 2014 at 5:15 pm #

    @KM,

    Officially around mid-2014.

  43. Aaron February 11, 2014 at 3:16 pm #

    2016:

    John Kerry needs to be changed from Sen. from MA to Sec. of State. Sen. Ed Markey should replace his endorser spot as Sen. from MA.

  44. Jonathan February 12, 2014 at 11:09 am #

    New poll has Christie tied as front-runner, even with scandals. Tied with Huckabee. However, Clinton wins in landslide against every Republican candidate. As Clinton has had a landslide lead in the poll for several months, I’m hoping this can be somewhat reflected in the game, as I doubt it will diminish to 50/50 anytime soon. At least not until the primaries are underway. Perhaps she should have a 5% lead nationally at the start of the game.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

  45. anthony_270admin February 12, 2014 at 3:05 pm #

    @Aaron re Kerry and Markey,

    Thanks for this – updated in latest internal.

  46. anthony_270admin February 12, 2014 at 3:10 pm #

    @Jonathan,

    The problem is that, by the time the Republican and Democratic nominations wrap up, various factors will be changed significantly. H. Clinton right now enjoys very high numbers among Dems and very high name recognition. Rep candidates are in a fractured field and many don’t have the name recognition. So, I think it’s too early to be tweaking general election numbers at this point. You might very well be right, but I’m going to let the GE numbers sit at close to 50-50 until closer to the GE.

  47. Jonathan February 13, 2014 at 4:41 pm #

    @Anthony

    Two questions.
    1) When is the next update?
    2) Will the next update let the candidates at the convention release their delegates to other candidates. For the older scenarios, part of the fun is the convention battle, and right now, as you know, the winner is whoever has the most delegates even if they don’t have the majority, because all the candidates release 0 delegates.

  48. Ethan February 14, 2014 at 2:24 pm #

    When is the Mac version going to be done?

  49. Dallas February 14, 2014 at 3:13 pm #

    @Ethan the goal is March.

  50. anthony_270admin February 14, 2014 at 3:14 pm #

    @Jonathan,

    Next update probably next week. Will continue to work out the ‘enter at variable’ times feature, and some other stuff.

    Conventions will be worked on after that.

    @Ethan,

    The aim is a March release for an initial Mac version.

  51. Aaron February 15, 2014 at 1:08 am #

    As I was just going through the numbers in the game to find tweaks I could make for a custom scenario, I found a pretty glaring mistake that changes the game pretty drastically. The game uses census stats from 2000. The game should at least use the 2010 census, if not projections to 2016 (partially extrapolated by registered voters in 2012, 2013, 2014 using the same rate of registration).

    How much of a difference does this make? Well for example, in the game population of states:

    -NY is short by about 400,000
    -CA is short by 3.4 million
    -Texas is short by 4.3 million
    -MI is over by about 44,000

    All in all, the total population of the game is short by about 27.7 million based on 2010 census. Those are some drastic numbers. If you extrapolate further, NY would add an additional 300,000 from 2010-2013.

  52. Craig February 15, 2014 at 10:17 am #

    @Aaron As far as election results go, it’s Registered Voters that count – not population.

  53. Aaron February 15, 2014 at 3:41 pm #

    @craig The game doesn’t seem to factor in registered voters, only population and eligible voters. The game is still missing over 7 million eligible voters nationwide.

  54. anthony_270admin February 17, 2014 at 3:30 pm #

    @Aaron,

    Thanks for this – noted.

  55. Jonathan February 21, 2014 at 11:41 am #

    Any chance of an update today?

  56. Josh February 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm #

    Lol @Jonathen i was hoping aswell. but i did win the presidency with bloomberg today so i thats makes up for a lack of updates.

  57. anthony_270admin February 21, 2014 at 4:08 pm #

    @Jonathan and Josh,

    Probably a new Test Release tomorrow (Saturday).

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes