Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I think the political violence system doesn't work the way I wanted it to. It feels clunky and doesn't really help gameplay much. I think the game handled rampages better before it was introduced.

I'd like to invite discussion on the topic of the political violence tolerance and any improvements or reversals on the current system that you think would be appropriate. If you disagree and political violence is the best thing since sliced bread, I'd like to hear that. If you agree and want me to go back to the old days, I want to hear that too. If you think it can be salvaged and made awesome, but you don't like it as it works now, I'd also like to hear you thoughts.

[Megaman]

all I'd want is it to be easier to raise or like back in the old days if you can't, because it's a bitch to raise and all it does now is make the LCS unpopular

[Think0028]

It does feel really weird that the only good way of raising political violence tolerance is to do things the public hates. It's definitely one of the reasons I tended to the sleeper army strategy. And several times now I've ruined my chance at winning by trying too hard and alienating everyone. While realistic, it's definitely annoying.

[Nicpon]

Can somebody enlighten me (without violet beatings  ) what is "old days" political violence tolerance?
I'm somewhat new.

[Megaman]

play the original version?

[Jonathan S. Fox]

There used to be no "political violence" issue. A "rampage" as reported by the news occurs when:

- You shoot a moderate or liberal on site.
- You drag a screaming hostage past moderates or liberals.
- You commit some other flagrant crime in plain sight of moderates or liberals.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, I was going to comment on this one in my LCS story, actually.

While it is sortof realistic, it doesn't really fit with the LCS "You can solve everything with sex and violence" philosophy.  The idea being that the Conservatives and the Liberals are like two rival football teams, and that all conservatives are super duper evil.

I suppose killing conservatives would influence people in two ways, in this game - firstly, it would inspire them, as this game delights in political violence.  Secondly, conservatives might feel threatened, and scared to continue being conservative.  I would, personally, quite like an extra poll, "x% of people fear the power of the LCS", which would be people being converted by force.

[Servant Corps]

I would, personally, quite like an extra poll, "x% of people fear the power of the LCS", which would be people being converted by force.

I endorse this too. Seems rather subtle to me.

[Megaman]

it would be epic for all of america to love and fear the LCS.

[Leafsnail]

Stockholm syndrome, I think.

[Zangi]

What about the CCS?  Would the people love and fear them if they were more actively killing people?

[Leafsnail]

What about the CCS?  Would the people love and fear them if they were more actively killing people?

That would make sense too, yes.

[Servant Corps]

How about, if Political Violence is high enough, terrorism becomes more effective, not less?

[Leafsnail]

How about, if Political Violence is high enough, terrorism becomes more effective, not less?

I thought that was how the current system worked?  Anyway, I thought the "Fear the LCS" thing could help, as you could win not just by gradually winning people over with Sleepers but also by simply scaring people into submission.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Hypothetically, let's say we went with a system where there are two metrics of people favoring the LCS -- some people love you, some people fear you, some people might love and fear you. Very Machiavellian. How would you see this working mechanically? How would it affect the game to have them love you or fear you?