ti-legacy.com

At the moment, since I'm a bit lost in what is new and what is old commentary - can someone consolidate the current recommended changes? Or are we good for the moment?

I'd like to recommend the consideration that a successful project of some minimal level be able to better "buffer" that Metric from dipping multiple levels in too short a period of time. Otherwise, IMHO it's a bit weird to RP.

IE - had a Metric up to "Good" from a project yesterday, the next day it's at Substandard . Perhaps Projects need a set minimum to prevent such things?


Related: Noble project Metrics affects don't always report correctly in the Recent shifts list which can make it confusing to compare with their status in the Internal Report if it shows two different scale names.

Metrics are made up of two components: their 'base' level, and the extra boost given by projects. If you want to stop the base level of the metric going down, the metric needs to be supported the normal way too (i.e. city support Infrastructure <reason>). You can always RP it as external circumstances ruining things despite your best efforts.

I do agree that the recent shifts list is wonky and seems to only report the metric 'base' level, not the total level. For example: right now in Recent Shifts, Race Relations shifted down from Substandard to Poor. With the current noble project, Race Relations are actually at Substandard, as per the Internal Report.

Starstarfish wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:40 am

I'd like to recommend the consideration that a successful project of some minimal level be able to better "buffer" that Metric from dipping multiple levels in too short a period of time. Otherwise, IMHO it's a bit weird to RP.

IE - had a Metric up to "Good" from a project yesterday, the next day it's at Substandard . Perhaps Projects need a set minimum to prevent such things?


Related: Noble project Metrics affects don't always report correctly in the Recent shifts list which can make it confusing to compare with their status in the Internal Report if it shows two different scale names.

Right. The next day it dropped because of the regular rollover. As Lonely said, projects are an adjustment layer -- if the metric isn't supported by the city at large, it's bound to take a dip despite your best efforts. If you're concerned with timing, there are things you can do to try and account for that. If the success had been delayed by a day, you would have been the hero who bumped things up rather than looking like you just got steamrolled over by the city's bad attitude. Something to be mindful of next time!

I think the Recent Shifts list actually does report correctly? At regular rollover, it's showing the base shift and that's fine. It tells you what things would be like if your project were not in play, which is useful info, I think. There's also a line that shows the anticipated effect your project had on the day it was successful; if the metrics are showing something better than what's reported under the shifts list, it's because more IP went into your project than was strictly necessary for success -- and that IP is giving a bonus little boost above and beyond the anticipated effect on the metric. This was determined to be not a bug, but I agree the reporting can be a little confusing when things don't line up.

If the metrics are showing something better than what's reported under the shifts list, it's because more IP went into your project than was strictly necessary for success -- and that IP is giving a bonus little boost above and beyond the anticipated effect on the metric.

Is this actually a thing? If so I don't think that's noted in the helpfile - can staff confirm does extra IP given to a project beyond what the original intended amount was have an effect? What's the effect of that versus if the original amount had been set higher?

*bump* For the question above.

Also ... could the progress status on projects show number values? And/or could a project actually update to say "Completed" when it has the fully IP required? A lot of influencing can take place off-time from the noble in question and with timezones/play times already a factor the person in question needing to remember how many IP were contributed and how many are needed versus easy code display of numbers.

I don't believe extra IP does anything, nope.

Not keen to add numbers to display progress. *ponder* It wasn't because we wanted people to overpay, however, it was more that these things wouldn't really be numbers on the top of the system, but rather 'degrees of sway' based on imprecise feelings or the imprecise outputs for a given action.

Kinaed wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:13 pm

I don't believe extra IP does anything, nope.

Incorrect, last I heard. Extra IP was allowed to "overflow the cup" so to speak to still benefit the project -- just doesn't contribute AFAIK anything extra to prestige.

Kinaed wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:13 pm

Not keen to add numbers to display progress. *ponder* It wasn't because we wanted people to overpay, however, it was more that these things wouldn't really be numbers on the top of the system, but rather 'degrees of sway' based on imprecise feelings or the imprecise outputs for a given action.

I think there's still merit in making it clear, one way or another, numbers or not, once the project has reached or passed its required IP quota. Right now, projects just indefinitely say "nearing completion".

It updating to "Completed" when full would solve the issue and reduce some OOC stress for folks because of the uncertainty.