Negative endorsements (sanctions)

[Marcuslandia]

Had this come to me as I was waking up this morning.

What is an endorsement? It's one nation telling another, "We like you!" At the moment, the Influence effect of a 1 million pop nation endorsement carries as much weight as the endorsement from a 1 billion pop nation. Likewise, the endorsement of a nation that has been in a region for 1 day receives the same impact as a nation that has been in the region for years. In short, there is no "weight" factor.

Now, an endorsement is universally favorable. What if one nation DISlikes another? Shouldn't there be as much opportunity to DIS a neighbor as there is to commend that neighbor? Taking in some accounting factor for the "weight" of the issuing nation?

At the moment, invasion is a numbers game. There are 20 invaders, and only 10 defenders; invaders win. But if those invaders are all 1 million pop nations while the defenders each have over a billion pop, it would be like saying OF COURSE a school of piranha can take down a herd of whales. Or that a pack of Chihuahuas could bring down a herd of elephants.

Influence is a PR game. If you can beef up another country's Influence by saying nice things about them, then it stands to reason that you could injure that nation's Influence by saying bad things about it. What has been missing in this game has been the weighted effects of _negative_ Influence. Extending the analogy further, it would permit the larger natives of a region (the ones with too much Influence to be ejected outright) to do _something_ to erode the Influence of the Occupiers. In effect, the many, many, many partisans of a large nation could be out wrecking havoc on whatever popular support the Occupiers may have in the region.

The simple mechanic of this would be to 1) weight Influence by population and duration in the region, and 2) have an option to sanction a nation instead of endorsing it.

[Unibot]

The simple mechanic of this would be to 1) weight Influence by population and duration in the region, and 2) have an option to sanction a nation instead of endorsing it.

I think this is quite smart.

What do the real gameplayers think?

I like it because its sort of a backwards way to look at the old seniority/endorsements argument in Influence. Why not just rate the 'quality' of an endorsement through age and status in the region!? I like it!

And then theres the political sanction bit which I really like too, and could be a good instrument for Defenders. I really like it!!

Raiders won't like it though. Unless I'm missing something.....

[Marcuslandia]

Oh, raiders are going to hate, _hate_, HATE it ! (Which I think would be a good sign that I'm the right track, I think.) It would mean that they would be seriously limited to, "Pick on someone your own size!"

Hmm. Just had another wicked thought. If you ever hit a negative Influence total in a region, you get automatically ejected. It would be an indirect way of residents to evict an obnoxious neighbor.

[Galloism]

As a massively large nation, this seems like a good idea to me.

[Marcuslandia]

As a massively large nation, this seems like a good idea to me.

{tiny print] wow. You're practically a planet all by yourself.

[St Constatine]

I don't like it.

Who's to say a nation that has been in a region for 2 years is more important/valuable than a nation that has been in the same region for 2 months?

The older nation may simply log into his nation once a week to answer his issues and then he's gone without ever saying a word.

The newer nation may log in every day, post frequently on the RMB, be active on an off-site forum.

Why should his endorsement mean less?

[Galloism]

As a massively large nation, this seems like a good idea to me.

{tiny print] wow. You're practically a planet all by yourself.

Actually, in RP, my civilization spans several worlds, although I don't RP often.

[Unibot]

Hmm. Just had another wicked thought. If you ever hit a negative Influence total in a region, you get automatically ejected. It would be an indirect way of residents to evict an obnoxious neighbor.

If Negative Influence (Sanctions) were weighted like normal influence, so only natives would have really significance in Sanctions - then I see that being a really neat idea. However, if the Negative Influence was not weighted, then it would allow raiders a window to get a powerful delegate banned.... but then again, if we're trying to pitch these ideas to the entirety of NationStates, this seems like a okay sized bone to throw at the raiders' way without given to much of an advantage to invaders/raiders in a hypothetical world with weighted influence.

[Unibot]

I don't like it.

Who's to say a nation that has been in a region for 2 years is more important/valuable than a nation that has been in the same region for 2 months?

The older nation may simply log into his nation once a week to answer his issues and then he's gone without ever saying a word.

The newer nation may log in every day, post frequently on the RMB, be active on an off-site forum.

Why should his endorsement mean less?

A newer, yet enthusiastic nation like that sounds like a likely candidate for delegate to be honest. In which case it wouldn't matter if his vote was weighted to be smaller than a more senior resident.

[Weylara]

I love this idea. Got any more wicked thoughts?

[Marcuslandia]

I don't like it.

Who's to say a nation that has been in a region for 2 years is more important/valuable than a nation that has been in the same region for 2 months?

The older nation may simply log into his nation once a week to answer his issues and then he's gone without ever saying a word.

The newer nation may log in every day, post frequently on the RMB, be active on an off-site forum.

Why should his endorsement mean less?

Remember an era when the USSR was referred to as "the Slumbering Giant"? (Probably not.) Even when a large nation is NOT particularly active on the world scene, everyone else recognizes that if the day comes (inevitably) that that country decides to throw its weight around, it WILL have a major impact. Conversely, a particularly active, noisy nation will be noted, but everybody recognizes that if that buzzing gets annoying, the larger neighbors may simply swat it down.

The real test of the system is not the Influence itself, it's what you are doing with it. If that long-term but generally inactive nation isn't using it's Influence, it's a non-factor. And it may be that the newer tiny nation is louder, but _should_ talking loud and often be the yardstick? If it is persuasive talk, it's Influence builds up quickly from all the endorsements it gets. But if the nation turns out to be a flash in the pan......

The only real test of Influence is the Test of Time -- and in NS, Time is measured in population and longevity within a region.

[Unibot]

By the way, I've added these ideas to the big list to hopefully gain a bit more attention.

[Marcuslandia]

Thank you!

[Ephialtes of Trachis]

Would you envisage these 'sanctions' as possibly being used as a retrospective tool in the liberation of your old region of 'the sphere of peace n harmony' byanychance?

[Marcuslandia]

Would you envisage these 'sanctions' as possibly being used as a retrospective tool in the liberation of your old region of 'the sphere of peace n harmony' byanychance?

Indubitably. However, realistically, I will have been ejected long before a change like this ever got incorporated. In the world of might-have-been, it would have been difficult at best for just a half-dozen raiders to take down the few of us that had been there for quite awhile. Marcuslandia, in particular, oldest resident with a population of 1.7 billion, could have empowered pretty much any other resident into the Delegate slot. (The trick would have been deciding who in the region _wasn't_ an infiltrator, as there were at least three of them.)

[Ephialtes of Trachis]

Would you envisage these 'sanctions' as possibly being used as a retrospective tool in the liberation of your old region of 'the sphere of peace n harmony' byanychance?

Indubitably. However, realistically, I will have been ejected long before a change like this ever got incorporated. In the world of might-have-been, it would have been difficult at best for just a half-dozen raiders to take down the few of us that had been there for quite awhile. Marcuslandia, in particular, oldest resident with a population of 1.7 billion, could have empowered pretty much any other resident into the Delegate slot. (The trick would have been deciding who in the region _wasn't_ an infiltrator, as there were at least three of them.)

Ah right, so this stems directly from a personal circumstance; a desire to see others exact future revenge in a sense?

[Marcuslandia]

Ah right, so this stems directly from a personal circumstance; a desire to see others exact future revenge in a sense?

Nope. Actually more to get to "fair is fair." I have no problem at all with players that mutually want to play the I/D game going at it hammer-and-tongs. And I think that those that want to be total isolationists should be able to do so. What I don't think is equitable is players that are in the middle ground that want inter-regional mobility w,o being dragged into the I/D game don't have that option.

And back to "fair is fair", I reflect back on -- God!, over 40 years of being involved in the gaming industry. I can see the attempt to make an aspect of NS closer to Reality. Looking at the model as is, I see some tweaks that would, quite easily make it more realistic. The biggest flaw of the I/D game is that it _does_ allow a pack of Chihuahuas drag down a small herd of elephants. That shouldn't be. Invasions are all about logistics and maneuvering. Take a look at the history of conflict and you see a recurring pattern of heavy localized force. Force, not simple numbers. A horde of weak units doesn't get the job done. "Use a bigger hammer."

These proposed changes wouldn't put and end to the I/D game, but it would require opponents to mass more power into fewer theaters of operations. And THAT would be much more realistic.

[Kandarin]

Invader groups would - and do, and already have for years - plant sleeper nations in any region that looks like a target. They switch them to WA status when the time comes to use them, or even before.

[Marcuslandia]

Invader groups would - and do, and already have for years - plant sleeper nations in any region that looks like a target. They switch them to WA status when the time comes to use them, or even before.

Quislings. Sleeper agents. Skorzeny's infiltrators at Battle of the Bulge. The American Nazi Bund in the US prior to WWII. (Not all of them have a heavy impact.) Turncoats all over the place.

Can't blame them for utilizing an obvious strategy. However, those infiltrators shouldn't have an impact way out of proportion to their actual potential. Like, a country the size of Albania shouldn't have as much as one the size of the USSR -- which is what the system is doing now.

[Naivetry]

Invader groups would - and do, and already have for years - plant sleeper nations in any region that looks like a target. They switch them to WA status when the time comes to use them, or even before.

Quislings. Sleeper agents. Skorzeny's infiltrators at Battle of the Bulge. The American Nazi Bund in the US prior to WWII. (Not all of them have a heavy impact.) Turncoats all over the place.

Can't blame them for utilizing an obvious strategy. However, those infiltrators shouldn't have an impact way out of proportion to their actual potential. Like, a country the size of Albania shouldn't have as much as one the size of the USSR -- which is what the system is doing now.

I dislike anything that gives a Gameplay advantage to larger (= older) nations. That just leads to newbies being disadvantaged and discouraged that they will never be able to match up to a nation founded a year before them.

[Glen Belt]

hahah marcus man,i like you mate but ive never seen someone cry as much!!!
im not trying to wind him up before you have a go,all im saying is 90% of the posts you write are basically ways that the game should be change that would help you and the position your in right now.has nobody noticed he only came on the forum last week and now its like he runs the place?!
you told me until we jacked you you was about to give it up as the issues were garbage!
this isnt for anything but YOU!

[AP3 10]

Hey the whole point of the forum is that everybody can speak. Just because they (you say) speaks a lot doesn't mean they own the forum.

I think this idea could be a good one, and could add a lot to the game. Hey we are a positive bunch, I suspect we will still be using the positive endorse more than negative, but if we really want to ensure a Nation can dislike another as much as they can like them, then the negative endorsement need not equal minus one of a positive.

[Glen Belt]

i didnt say it was a bad idea. i just said it was funny how his ideas are all relevant to his situation thats all.

[Marcuslandia]

hahah marcus man,i like you mate but ive never seen someone cry as much!!!
im not trying to wind him up before you have a go,all im saying is 90% of the posts you write are basically ways that the game should be change that would help you and the position your in right now.has nobody noticed he only came on the forum last week and now its like he runs the place?!
you told me until we jacked you you was about to give it up as the issues were garbage!
this isnt for anything but YOU!

Well, if you have reviewed all of my many posts since I came on the forum, you would discover that I have, in several places clearly stated ALL of the points you suggest that I have been less than forthcoming about. I _have_ mentioned that I didn't come to the forums until my region was invaded. (Until the forum shifted away from Jolt, I _couldn't_ post in the forum because of a glitch at Jolt's end, but that's a different story.) I _have_ pointed out in several places that I was close to walking away from the game, until the GSU invasion occurred. I _have_ in the issues threads loudly complained about the great number of trashable issue choices.

There's nothing that you just tried to highlight that I haven't already freely said elsewhere. And what you _failed_ to point out is that amidst all my many recent posts is that I have also spent a good amount of time discussing subjects that do NOT relate to the invader/defender game. I have offered my opinions and ideas of how to improve the game on a broad range of topics. Admittedly, the bulk of my posts concern the I/D game, but that is because of all the things in the game at the moment, that is the are that IN MY OPINION needs the greatest amount change, in order to make the game more equitable.

However, in the case of inequality, you cannot balance things out unless someone that currently holds an advantage is willing to give it up.

And that is perhaps what YOU are crying about.

[Glen Belt]

haha your time will come son !
i have been crying about this game recently your right about that,with tears of laughter,pure joy hahaha!
and no i didnt read all of your posts i would have been here all day,but im sure they were as delightful as ever.
beware the moon!