Advertisement
by Pierconium » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:26 pm
by Escape from Trump » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:48 pm
by Kitzerland » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:53 pm
Escape from Trump wrote:I have my own idea for a change for influence. Instead of being based solely on how long one has been in the region and their endorsements, why not add a few more factors? Firstly, wouldn't it make sense for a regional officer to get more influence just for being an officer, and a bit of influence for each thing they have authority for? If you're wondering how that would effect R/D, this would make it harder for raiders to get rid of those pesky officers who reverse their damage. This seems more realistic too, because obviously, officers are more influential, right? Another thing; what about some influence added for every RMB post that isn't suppressed by mods or officers, and wasn't self-deleted? In addition to the realism thing from earlier, you'll find that this will make the RMB much more active and interesting.
by Escape from Trump » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:58 pm
Kitzerland wrote:Escape from Trump wrote:I have my own idea for a change for influence. Instead of being based solely on how long one has been in the region and their endorsements, why not add a few more factors? Firstly, wouldn't it make sense for a regional officer to get more influence just for being an officer, and a bit of influence for each thing they have authority for? If you're wondering how that would effect R/D, this would make it harder for raiders to get rid of those pesky officers who reverse their damage. This seems more realistic too, because obviously, officers are more influential, right? Another thing; what about some influence added for every RMB post that isn't suppressed by mods or officers, and wasn't self-deleted? In addition to the realism thing from earlier, you'll find that this will make the RMB much more active and interesting.
So, constantly saying pointless stuff in the RMB gives you more influence?
by Frisbeeteria » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:30 pm
Escape from Trump wrote:No that's spam, which would be suppresed by an officer or a mod,
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:22 am
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Roavin » Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:59 am
Naivetry wrote:-snipped for length-
by Naivetry » Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:06 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:I can't imagine a less productive debate than doing this with you, Naivetry. Nothing matters apparently.
Bottom line is there isn't actually some universal glut of activity in all the GCRs. Influence and the existence of security councils aren't driving activity away. Coups and invasions don't create long-lasting activity, and in fact do quite the opposite. There's nothing redeeming about this proposal. All it would do is throw GCRs into permanent instability, preventing any real communities to be able to root themselves and grow. Nothing about that is good for NS.
Roavin wrote:*snip*
Roavin wrote:So - no. TSP is not an aristocracy roleplaying as a democracy. This is the structure of a meritocratic democracy.
by Galiantus VII » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:34 am
Naivetry wrote:Pierconium wrote:I suggested that Influence be removed only from the GCRs and be replaced with a static formula that limits the number of nations that a Delegate can eject in one update period (for example 20% of the pre-update population).
If we're brainstorming, I'd be very interested hearing what people think about removing all Influence costs for ejecting WA nations across the game, not just in the GCRs - and replacing it with a dirt-simple formula where you simply can't eject a WA nation which has a certain percentage (10%? 20%? 50%?) of your number of endorsements or higher. (50% is simple and scales easily, though could be super hard to meet in the feeders.)
We could keep Influence costs for ejecting non-WA nations, so they're still afforded their existing level of protection from raiders and tyrannical delegates. But WA nations would have to earn their protection - which is only fair, since they are also threatening in ways that non-WA nations are not. (We might have to tweak the Influence rate gains for non-WA nations so they would be safer, and up the Influence cost of instituting a password, since Delegates would no longer be blowing their Influence on ejecting high-Influence WAs. But that could be worked out.)
Thoughts?
The side effects of hearing a view you disagree with can include confusion, nausea, and vomiting. Just try and listen to someone say anything politically incorrect without doing any of those things. Obviously, then, we have to consider the precious feelings of everyone we talk to. Some people don't want to be triggered, guys. It's their right as Americans.
by Galiantus VII » Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:32 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:Escape from Trump wrote:No that's spam, which would be suppresed by an officer or a mod,
Never gonna happen, I'm afraid. I can't see admin adding a feature that rewards spamming. Make no mistake, that's how it would be used. It wouldn't necessarily look like spam - it might just look like a nice conversation - but it would be incredibly easy to set up two browsers and two puppets to post on some RMB for several hours, if it gave them access to extra influence.
I've seen schoolkid regions with 10,000 pages of RMB posts a year. No suppressed posts, either, just normal conversation using our RMBs in lieu of texting during school. As for mod suppression, I'd be surprised if we average more than 20-50 mod-suppressed posts a week. Compared to the overall forum volume, that's a tiny drop in a HUUUUGE bucket.
No, influence for RMB posts is a terrible idea, and I'd campaign heavily against it if needed.
The side effects of hearing a view you disagree with can include confusion, nausea, and vomiting. Just try and listen to someone say anything politically incorrect without doing any of those things. Obviously, then, we have to consider the precious feelings of everyone we talk to. Some people don't want to be triggered, guys. It's their right as Americans.
by Amy Madison » Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:35 am
by Galiantus VII » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:06 pm
Amy Madison wrote:But that merely rewards people who are excellent writers, not necessarily overall contribution to region activity. As someone who happens to think highly of their writing skill, that's a nice idea, but not really conducive to the overall goal.
Maybe there could be a way for a WA delegate to temporarily increase the rate of influence gain for a specific nation, as a reward for service or as part of regional office?
The side effects of hearing a view you disagree with can include confusion, nausea, and vomiting. Just try and listen to someone say anything politically incorrect without doing any of those things. Obviously, then, we have to consider the precious feelings of everyone we talk to. Some people don't want to be triggered, guys. It's their right as Americans.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:15 pm
by Amy Madison » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:26 pm
by Eluvatar » Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:46 pm
Naivetry wrote:The real problem with coups is that NS is full of arsonists rather than gardeners.
Pierconium wrote:That change accomplished nothing.
by Pierconium » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:08 am
Eluvatar wrote:Only preventing the ejection of nations with a large number of endorsements, and rendering the ejection of nations with few endorsements free, would not leave it practically possible to remove a delegate in a large category of circumstances because a delegate could potentially eject arbitrarily many endorsements of other contenders for the Delegacy. Indeed, I imagine that under most circumstances you could eject starting from the nation with the fewest endorsements until you'd ejected nearly everyone else.
Influence in the feeders and sinkers has been changed significantly since 2008 or 2011: the nations in those regions are effectively limited to about the influence they've obtained over the last six months (or the influence they'd have obtained with 10 endorsements over the last six months). This means that to retain large amounts of influence, nations must retain large amounts of endorsements.Naivetry wrote:The real problem with coups is that NS is full of arsonists rather than gardeners.
Making it easier to eject lots of nations without consequence helps arsonists. Gardeners are less likely to want to perform ejections, whether of many nations or of long-time nations, no?Pierconium wrote:That change accomplished nothing.
That appears to be fairly clearly not the case to me. I base my impression on events since the change in Lazarus and Osiris.
Finally, I am not convinced by arguments that the feeders are really all the same. Statistical examinations of endorsement and influence levels have indicated otherwise, for one thing. If there is interest, I can present some of those findings.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: United States of Dictators
Advertisement