Upcoming President Infinity – Version Ericson – 2.0.3

Hi everyone,

This post will keep track of changes to the upcoming version of President Infinity v. Ericson – 2.0.3, and includes an estimated release date for it (as with any estimate, this can change).

Est. release date: Saturday, May 23rd.

Changes so far (this list will be updated as changes are implemented on this side, these changes will not be available until the version is released):

  • Main Screen > now displays days until election, when hover over shows election date
  • 2016 > Dems > Warren, Schweitzer -> ‘off’ by default
  • 2016 > Dems > Sanders, O’Malley, Webb moved up in list
  • 2016 > Dems > Sanders > Fundraising 1 -> 2, Ground 1 -> 2
  • 2016 > Dems > Primaries > Bernie Sanders > 4% -> 15%
  • 2016 > Dems > Primaries > Hillary Clinton > New Hampshire > 53% -> 62%
  • 2016 > Dems > Primaries > Bernie Sanders > New Hampshire > -> 18%
  • 2016 > Dems > Primaries > Hillary Clinton > Vermont > 64% -> 46%
  • 2016 > Dems > Primaries > Bernie Sanders > Vermont > 15% -> 42%
  • 2016 > Dems > Primaries > Hillary Clinton > Washington > 64% -> 57%
  • 2016 > Dems > Primaries > Bernie Sanders > Washington -> 24%
  • 2016 > Dems > Primaries > Martin O’Malley > Washington > 1% -> 4%
  • 2016 > Reps > Primaries > Jeb Bush > Fundraising > 2 -> 3
  • 2016 > Reps > Primaries > Jeb Bush > Funds > $10 M -> $15 M
  • 2016 > Reps > General Election > Jeb Bush > Funds > $15 M -> $20 M
  • 2016 > Dems > Primaries > John Hickenlooper > Colorado > 2% -> 10%
  • 2016 > Endorsers > Sen. Ron Johnson > Walker 0 -> 75
  • Strategy Screen > Percentages > added two more viewing modes, Closest %s Not Ahead Listed First (for example, 0%, -1%, -2%, and so on), and Closest %s Ahead Listed First (for example, +1%, +2%, and so on), this makes it easier to see the states you might want to focus on next if you are expanding or contracting (respectively) your electoral strategy
  • Strategy Screen > Ads > enabled listing by Ads power, highest or lowest
  • Fixed bug which occurs when use up all policy speeches and then try to create another policy speech
  • Campaign Editor > Regions > can now set issue centers, profiles on state-by-state basis
  • Campaign Editor > Regions > no longer displays ‘Candidates’ tab item
  • Kickstarter rewards > Mastermind > added Presidential candidates
  • Research Screen > fixed bug where could only leak first scandal if multiple ones hadn’t leaked yet
  • News Stories > “Campaign Too Negative?” story now is about issue player is actually attacking on in that player’s theme

51 thoughts on “Upcoming President Infinity – Version Ericson – 2.0.3

  1. 2016 > Dems > Warren, Schweitzer -> ‘off’ by default.
    2016 > Dems > Sanders, O’Malley, Webb moved up in list.

  2. I think Bolton should probably be added as an “Off” because he was strongly considering running.

  3. Strategy Screen > Percentages > added two more viewing modes, Closest %s Not Ahead Listed First (for example, 0%, -1%, -2%, and so on), and Closest %s Ahead Listed First (for example, +1%, +2%, and so on), this makes it easier to see the states you might want to focus on next if you are expanding or contracting (respectively) your electoral strategy.

  4. @Anthony

    I think I mentioned something along these lines a long time ago, but I just remembered it. How about having issue knowledge broken up into domestic, foreign policy and economics? For instance, Joe Biden would probably be a 4 in foreign policy and someone like Ben Carson would be a 2.

    While working on my 1952 campaign, I realized one of the candidates was really single issue. He was a foreign policy whiz, but knew little of anything else relative to the other candidates.

    Maybe issue knowledge based on each issue is the way to go?

  5. Nathan, will you be including Donald Trump down the line? He is actually making moves to run such as hiring staff, which he hasn’t done in his previous teases.

  6. Not sure if this is the place, but my issue is that Republican candidates are staying in the race too long-I’ve had King, Jindal, Fiorna, Santorum, Pence and other 3rd tier candidates staying in until Florida primary or even later.

    Likewise the game is rigged against you in regards to endorsements-I’ve lost several times to Jeb Bush despite winning Iowa, New Hamsphire and SC. I’ve even seen Bush finished 8th in all year but he simply gets all the endorsements.

  7. I recently changed my email address because of google’s two step verification locking me out. I was wondering if you guys knew how to allow me to get the games emailed to my new email address because I wouldn’t get them if I kept sending it to my old one

  8. I enjoy the feature where I can have all candidates undecided and they jump in as time goes along, forcing another step of having to use CP points to get on the ballot in states as well. There is a major problem. I have played several games doing this and all do the same.

    The last game, I was Rand Paul. Only Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz had jumped in. Other undecideds hadn’t, so by the time Iowa rolls around, they still have a certain percentage of the vote according to polling. The error is that the percentage going to the other candidates seems to all go to one candidate.

    Walker was leading Iowa 18%(though he hadn’t entered) to Rand’s 16%. Bush had 14% and Cruz 12%. When the votes in Iowa are cast, Rand gets 18%, Cruz 13%, and Bush shoots up to like 69%.

  9. @Alistair,

    Thanks for this feedback. I think some of this computer player and endorser behavior is as-designed. That’s to make it so the human player has to do certain things to get other players to withdraw, or to get endorsements. Having said that, feedback noted – I might modify the chances of computer players withdrawing and look at the endorsement score increase formula.

  10. @Nathan,

    It’s looking more plausible. The Steering Council voted against a Trump addition last month in favor of work on other features and candidates, but if he keeps taking concrete actions to launch a bid, and in particular if he has a significant impact on the election, it will probably happen.

  11. @Jonathan,

    It’s a good idea. It would have to implemented in a way that adds nuance without a significant amount of complexity for the player, though.

    Thinking this through, we could switch Personal Attributes to decimals. So, instead of it being 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, it could be 3.4, or 4.7, and so on. Having done this, overall IF would simply be an aggregate of the individual issue familiarity scores. Alternately, the overall score could be the average, rounded down, say. A campaign designer could decide to make them all the same, or customize as many as they like, so it wouldn’t add more work as far as design goes.

    There’s a slight wrinkle, in that issues have profiles, so the overall score would probably be weighted by issue profiles.

    This would open up the possibility of debates or interviews focusing on specific issues (with a chance that an interviewer will throw in some unexpected question that could catch the candidate off-guard, like something on foreign policy when they’re expecting questions on domestic policy).

    Now that I’m thinking about it more, it sounds interesting.

  12. When it comes to candidates withdrawing, I’d say that a way to make the scenarios realistic is to expand event scripting and introduce it to candidate behavior.

    For example:

    michele_bachmann
    IF: date > 2012-01-03
    AND
    NOT: iowa_percentage > 10
    =
    dropout = yes

    And so on. This could help with modern-day scenarios where early states can make it or break it for some candidates.

  13. @Tayya That’s really smart, I’d like to see that.
    @Anthony That would really and a lot more diversity having 50 possibilities for each issue/statistics.

  14. @Tayya Great idea! Like it alot.

    Anthony I just wanna point out the percentages in the candidates homestates. Sanders has like 6% in Vermont and John Hickenlooper has about 2,5% in Colorado. That ain’t right.

  15. Just downloaded the game, after reviewing the Republican Candidates, how does Jeb Bush only start off with 10 million dollars, a sum equivalent to Chris Christie, when Jeb’s strongest dimension of his candidacy is fundraising strength?

  16. @Rajan,

    I’ll look at modifying Bush’s starting funds – thanks for this feedback.

  17. @Tayya,

    Ya, that would be nice – we’ll see.

    @Mr_Falcon,

    Are you saying Hickenlooper is too low? Typically, these things are set by the most recent public polling data that is available. If you have evidence that Hickenlooper polls above that in Colorado, by all means let me know.

  18. @anthony

    I don’t have the polling data but he has 1,6 to Clintons 48,2.
    Isn’t that very low given the fact the he recently won reelection?

  19. @Mr_Falcon,

    I don’t know – it’s difficult to say when we’re dealing with counterfactual situations like this.

    I think you’re right that intuitively, Hickenlooper should poll higher to start in Colorado – I’ve noted this.

  20. @Eric,

    It’s a good idea by Fox. I personally think they should have set the limit to a smaller number – maybe 7.

    It was a similar problem with the U.K. debate – the parties were hand-picked by the powers that be.

    Probably, debates will have a couple added ways to decide – by listing the specific candidates, or by setting a number with an optional % limit.

  21. Fixed bug which occurs when use up all policy speeches and then try to create another policy speech.
    2016 > Reps > Primaries > Jeb Bush > Fundraising > 2 -> 3.
    2016 > Reps > Primaries > Jeb Bush > Funds > $10 M -> $15 M.
    2016 > Reps > General Election > Jeb Bush > Funds > $15 M -> $20 M.
    2016 > Dems > Primaries > John Hickenlooper > Colorado > 2% -> 10%.

  22. Campaign Editor > Regions > can now set issue centers, profiles on state-by-state basis.

  23. 2016 > Dems > Primaries > Bernie Sanders > 4% -> 15%.
    2016 > Dems > Primaries > Bernie Sanders > New Hampshire > -> 18%.

  24. 2016 > Dems > Primaries > Hillary Clinton > New Hampshire > 53% -> 62%.
    2016 > Dems > Primaries > Bernie Sanders > Vermont > 15% -> 42%.
    2016 > Dems > Primaries > Hillary Clinton > Vermont > 64% -> 46%.
    2016 > Dems > Primaries > Hillary Clinton > Washington > 64% -> 57%.
    2016 > Dems > Primaries > Bernie Sanders > Washington > -> 24%.
    2016 > Dems > Primaries > Martin O’Malley > Washington > 1% -> 4%.

  25. Not that the Dem primary will be at all competitive, Sanders does make it much more interesting. I wonder if he will stick to his “no negative ads” promise. On that note, it might be worth adding a “negativity” factor for each candidate. Meaning how often they will run negative ads and do negative events and such. For example, Sanders would be a 1 and the average would be more like a 3. (A guy like Trump would probably be a 5)

  26. @Aaron re negativity factor,

    That would be interesting – it might be possible to fold this attribute into the Integrity attribute. I’ll think about it.

  27. Is there a way for me to change the email I signed up with so that I can keep getting the games? I really enjoy it and I don’t want to pay for it more than once

Leave a Comment