Suggestion: Demolish influence level

[Enfaru]

I think it should be possible for the founder or the WA delegate to be able to (if the founder lets them) demolish the influence level of members therein or raise them back to their maximum amount (perhaps use a divide function instead of actually altering the base number).

This would allow the regional management to have more say on how influential someone is which is not dependent on time in the region. It may be more fun for the Raiding Defending too, I don't know.

The regional management in my region for instance, might want to give members with more ''influence'' more say in how the region is run, but if that nation is disruptive they have no way of sending them to the back of the class as it were.

It would also make the region more appropriate by being able to clearly highlight who tends to have more influence in the region as well.

[Leutria]

I would say no. The only reason influence exists is to make long standing residence of the region harder to eject, and so to allow delegates to whip influence would defeat the purpose (unless it cost the delegate as much influence as it would to eject that nation, in which case I am not quite sure of the point).

[Ratateague]

I think it should be possible for the founder or the WA delegate to be able to (if the founder lets them) demolish the influence level of members therein or raise them back to their maximum amount (perhaps use a divide function instead of actually altering the base number).

That would defeat the entire purpose of the influence mechanic altogether. It is there as a safeguard against delegate control. Giving a delegate absolute control would counteract the primary reason why influence was introduced in the first place.

This would allow the regional management to have more say on how influential someone is which is not dependent on time in the region. It may be more fun for the Raiding Defending too, I don't know.

Time alone does not account for much influence gain. It's the endorsements that really make the difference. Just endorse (and direct endorsements to) who you want running the region, and determine who is in control based on their endorsement/influence level. No extra mechanic necessary.

The regional management in my region for instance, might want to give members with more ''influence'' more say in how the region is run, but if that nation is disruptive they have no way of sending them to the back of the class as it were.

Also unnecessary. As a delegate or founder, you can only give members more influence over how a region is run through social constructs, such as elected government or appointed positions. Game mechanics has no impact on how they carry out their duties. Just roleplay it like the rest of us.

[Frisbeeteria]

I think this might bear further discussion. The following is off-the-cuff and is strictly a player opinion, not an official site statement.

If somebody wants to destroy someone else's political reputation, they can throw vast amounts of money / advertising / whisper campaigns / assassins / etc against them. If there were a similar mechanism in the game, it would be using influence to destroy influence. Right now there are only two main ways to lower influence - be a Regional Administrator and spend it; or leave the region voluntarily or otherwise. Adding influence battles might suit the nature of the game.

So, we could have Influence Wars. Let's call it an iAttack to coin a term. My initial take would have the iAttacker using a minimum of double the influence to remove someone's built up influence. A more balanced way might be to make the attacks come in strengths like mild/medium/strong, and the iAttack value would be "x" while the attack cost might be "x times # of endorements on the attacker". The more endos you have, the higher the influence cost of your attacks (burning influence to preserve your own reputation). This would allow attacks to be similar whether in a 3 nation region or a 6000 nation feeder.

I'm not sure that limiting iAttacks to Delegates or Founders would be best - what if everyone had the ability to participate? Influence values are hidden, so you would never necessarily know the impact of your attack. If the Delegate and his cronies wanted to iAttack a challenger, but the challenger had numerical superiority, then it's possible that coups could occur following coordinated iAttacks (as you might see in a US Presidential Primary). iDefense would simply be your existing influence base - if you are a WA member and you convince more people to endorse you, you build your defense faster.

I'm going to have to defer to others on how this might affect the R/D game. I know influence plays a role, but I'm not sure if this would add enough variety to both sides to make it interesting. I do feel certain that this would promote a great deal of regional activity, particularly in open but stagnant regions. All those sleeper puppets could now take an active role.

I'm now curious to see where others think this might go.

[Ratateague]

There's already a game with mechanics like that called Clout. It hasn't gone over well. Essentially everyone uses these tactics on a regular basis to the point where it overshadows (and overpowers) the actual political aspect of the game. The advantages given by political corruption results in unintentionally strong incentive not to be on the straight and narrow, as the balancing countereffects rely solely in the player catching it in the act. Yet even then, the constituency/influence accumulated over time cancels out whatever penalty is dealt*. What once had potential now has little subtlety or intrigue to it, and players have got into the habit of laying low and shooting anything that moves. Fun if you want to kill stuff and gain "points," not so much fun if you want politics or roleplay.

*I imagine this goes double for larger regions

[Ballotonia]

A problem is puppet nations: stuffing a region with puppets just to have them all gather influence over time, then have them spend their influence all at once to take out a single target. We want to avoid game situations where victory goes to whomever has the most puppet nations.

Ballotonia

[Ratateague]

A problem is puppet nations: stuffing a region with puppets just to have them all gather influence over time, then have them spend their influence all at once to take out a single target.

Also another problem in Clout. Lots of inconspicuous players, not attracting attention, keeping activity to a minimum, functioning solely to take down other players who don't know they even exist. (i.e. metagaming)