Prompted by a related news story this morning I have a new dilemma put together - “Phase Out Conventional Bulbs” - allows you to ban thier future sale to improve energy efficency and lower CO2 emissions.
Let me know if you have any comments, etc.
EDIT 06/01/2008 - Original Version removed, replaced with Version 2.
Dilemma effects have been regigged to have a variable effect over time (CO2 & Energy Efficeny take time to lower and poor start off unhappy because of more expensive bulbs then chear up as elec bills get cheaper) - also includes linked event.
BanConventionalBulb v2.zip (9.64 KB)
A very interesting policy. I keep wondering if other effects are justified maybe. Would retired people object to the fact that they have to use ‘new fangled’ bulbs? or would they appreciate the lower energy bills and less need to change them?
For that matter, would the poor really oppose them? as they do lower overall energy bills.
I’d not considered the retired aspect - could be either way…
The theory behind poor dislike of the ban is that the intial outset for energy bulbs is higher - which is why that element eventually fades (although I’d thought I had it fading faster than .95, might be a mistype). Bulbs of any type aren’t exactly highly expensive, so this was an element I was unsure of. Is it possible to have them initally a little upset but then slide over to slightly pleased?
The news report was actually regarding the fact it’s come out that most energy saving bulbs contain small amounts of mercury without any warnings, disposal instructions or similar on the packaging. This makes them potentially harmful to the enviroment if disposed of incorrectly and potentially harmful to individual health if you don’t clean up properly if you accidentally break them open. Slightly concerning as they make up the entire light provision in my home.
(If you’re bothererd have a glance at news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7172662.stm)
I had initially intended a follow up detrimental event item where the media announces exactly this - which upsets people - but only if you had banned standard bulbs. But I’m not sure exactly how to impliment that?
that would be tricky as a dilemma, but because policies are ‘active’ they can be used as a pre-requisite for stuff like events.
That’s what I’d thought. Oh well.
One additional thoughts on the effects - do you think Liberals would be also be slightly upset by the state interferance in personal freedom to buy whatever type they want?
Is it not possible to do the following:
Let’s imagine that we call the dilemma PhaseOut and the event MercuryFound
Have for the event an influence of something like
0 = “random,0.000,0.400”
It would therefore never normally reach the threshold to trigger.
Then to the dilemma, under OnImplement for the option that is “phase out” or whatever, have the instruction CreateGrudge(PhaseOut,MercuryFound,0.7,0.950);
Would this not then increase the likeihood of that event triggering by 0.7, to the extent that it is now over the threshold, and, with the random influence, likely to get a high enough figure to trigger?
Sounds a good idea to me. That should work.
I shall try that in a moment to see if it has the desired result.
As for making the dilemma initally upset a group and then slowly make them happy instead (poor initally upset at costly bulbs but eventually happy at cheaper bills). Could you do this in the dilemma OnImplement:
Would both grudges be created or would the second overwrite the first? If both create successfully then this provides a method to “grow” support for dilemmas and the like as well over time as reduce them. I’ll test this as well but it could you confirm if this will be the case?
Wow, that’s a good idea. I’d love to hear if it works.
Creating a grudge to bump the event up so it triggers works. I’m testing still to ensure that it doesn’t trigger when it shouldn’t.
On that note, what is the lowest score an event will trigger at?
Creating two grudges towards one “target” seems to work!
I have CreateGrudge(BanConventionalBulb,EnergyEfficiency,0.08,1.0);CreateGrudge(BanConventionalBulb,EnergyEfficiency,-0.08,0.9); in the OnImplement (and a few other pairings for poor and CO2) and if you accept that path and then look at the Energy Efficiency stat it has two entries for the dilemma - one at +8%, the other -8%, and on the following turn this becomes +8% and -7.2%, etc.
The visible effect to the player is maybe a little odd as the item appears twice in different way, particularly if the player isn’t expecting it.
The lowest for an event is 0.7 and for a dilemma is 0.5.
See viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1447 for further discussion on this point.
As for the display problem, the two effects could probably do with consolidating for graphical interface purposes in a future patch.
Updated version released using the double-grudge method to have improved effects. Includes the linked Event as I’d initally intended it to.
Attachment is in original post.