Regional Influence Overhaul

[St Mason]

This is how the system works currently. No one enters a region with influence unless they were already a resident, and even then if they've been gone for a long time they won't have any

There is one of the flaws. All nations enter a region WITH influence abet a small amount MINNOW.
A nation even a resident (native) who leaves the region have left the region and will become a new native of the new nation. They should not be rewarded by having their influence retained after they left the region.

A solution may well be is that their acquired influence be reduced by each Update (Minor and Main) they are away from their now left “home” region.

1. Not everyone likes to answer their issues. A lot of nations have already answered all of them, some have got their nations just where they want them. It's not a good indicator of activity.
2. Some nations prefer to post on offsite forums. I know in my region only a few people post on the RMB.
3. I thought you were a raider? You of all people should know that WA nations are not always main nations, in fact, more often than not they aren't. Anyway being in the WA does increase your influence, especially if you have endorsements.
4. Ok, this maybe could work. However, it's not good enough on its own. It still rewards just existing to some degree, since we already know no one here is going to require that you be active every day. Nor should they. It at best puts a small dent in the problem.

Issues would be a way of building influence; nations are not required to do issues. So if some get bored or just don’t like issues, they will not avail them selves to this method of influence gaining.

Posts on the RMB again overall these post are beneficial to the region as a means of showing activity. If the nation doesn’t like these posts or choses not to then again it is not required of nations, the result is that they again just do not avail them selves to the gaining of influence.via RMB posting.

Indeed I am a Raider yet I am also a dedicated player of NationStates for 7 years. My main interest is in the game. Occupations do change over time.

I see you are incorrect in classifying WA nations, however temporary they are controlled directly by the player. The namesake nation is just a puppet without WA status. This namesake puppet would retain influence in the home region.

Recent government activity is not required everyday however it is important in determination of regional activity. It time could be scaled and the influence gain or loss calculated progressively - 1 to 28 days and 1 to 58 days.

The problem isn't that the formula is undeterminable. Quite the opposite; it's overly predictable and stale. The real problem is that under the current system nations can gain massive amounts of influence and essentially monopolize power. The only possible solutions I see to this are:

1. A way of capping the amount of influence a nation can earn, regardless of how long they have been in a region.
2. Some way of being able to lose influence, despite having been in the same region.
3. Some combination of the first two.

You could always add in some way of using activity, too. It might actually mix quite well with this suggestion.

I do not know the actual calculation, I actually doubt anyone in NationStates could provide a definitive explanation. I do see that is not responsive to the nations changes and movements in the game.

Capping the top amount of influence is actually not a good solution for again it promoted abuse in the game. I feel standard rules and their application will correct the obvious flaws.

Losing influence or gaining influence would become more the responsibility of the nation if it is more based on activities. Those on vacation nations would lose influence over time based on activity levels.

Yes there could be consideration given to utilizing a mix of activities to add or reduce influence.

I'm almost positive that that actually is true, the WAD gets extra influence. I KNOW that endorsements really help.

And this is what should be the case, this will allow for the Raider/Defender game to continue. It should level the playing field for both and give the Target region some more say in the outcome, with the value of endorsements properly scaled by native status.

[St Mason]

No further comments?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

As long as there is a system by which influence can be lost, I'm for whatever. Right now I think we've saturated the market.

[His Civility]

I like the proposed changes to RI for CTEd nations, and if you’ll bear with the ramblings of a noobish raider, I’d like to have a say on the rest.

It makes sense to me to base some of RI off WA activity, but I’d honestly like to see more for non-WA activity like RMB posting, issues, and maybe telegrams. Considering I rarely have a nation in the WA, especially not for long, it feels silly to spend so much time doing issues and participating in a region, and still be a minnow. In one case, one of my puppets spent over a month in a region, with daily activity—and when we raided it, I remember noticing my influence was still minnow. The current WAD there is a power and he still hasn’t noticed the raid, it’s been so long since he logged in. I feel like RI is quite biased toward WA members, really, and I’d like to see more of it based on non-WA activity. Yes, it would be nice for me—and I think it’d also give non-WA nations of raided regions a bit more protection via higher RI.

Just to toss it out there—what if there was a system where Founders (or WADs) could influence the RI of nations in the region? It could be played for favoritism, true—but it could also give a better reflection of community standing. As it is, RI has very little relation to forum influence; this could change that.

On an unrelated note—Hi, [violet]. I figure I don’t stand a chance in the world of ever finding you, so I figured I’d just say hi while I could and call it a day.

[[violet]]

Hi.

I feel like RI is quite biased toward WA members

It is, by necessity, because people can have many non-WA nations. If you allow Influence to be gained by non-WA nations in a roughly equivalent manner to WA nations, you'll have unstoppable invasions from one guy's 500 puppets.

Rewarding other activity (or penalizing other inactivity, which is the same thing since influence is relative) is worth considering, I think.

[Unibot]

Rewarding other activity (or penalizing other inactivity, which is the same thing since influence is relative) is worth considering, I think.

(1) Forum posts other than F7, Tech or Mod made during a nations' residence in a certain region, (2) Issue answering during a nations' residence in a certain region, (3) RMB posting (spam being prohibited already) in a certain region, (4) WA voting activity during a nations' residence in a certain region, (5) commendation and condemnations?

It would make roleplayer regions more defensible, that's for sure. Also the "Most Influential Region Ranking" would be a very colorful list indeed.

[St Mason]

(5) commendation and condemnations?

C&C would poison the whole process, C&C at present is SO tainted it is an OLD BOY NETWORK.

- I say leave it out. Until WASC is reevaluated.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

(5) commendation and condemnations?

C&C would poison the whole process, C&C at present is SO tainted it is an OLD BOY NETWORK.

- I say leave it out. Until WASC is reevaluated.

Actually I could live with that. Most nations don't get commended; the overall effect would be limited. As long as you don't go crazy with how much extra influence they have.

[Sigma Fistica]

Wow.... I leave for a week, come back and my topic is booming.... I'm so proud of me....


As for the gaining influence from forum posts.... I think thats a great idea but it could bring abuse with people posting on forum just to gain influence.... It would result in loads of pointless things said.... I think it has promise but it could be corrupted just way to easily

[St Mason]

As for the gaining influence from forum posts.... I think thats a great idea but it could bring abuse with people posting on forum just to gain influence.... It would result in loads of pointless things said.... I think it has promise but it could be corrupted just way to easily

I am inclined to agree Forum Posts are away from the normal average NationStates Experience. If any weight at all is given, (I hope none is given) is should be extremely minimal.

Regional Influence in NationStates is universal to ALL nations and this is why the components of RI ranking should be based upon purely NationStates activities. Even Population could have a small Experience influence.

[Unibot]

As for the gaining influence from forum posts.... I think thats a great idea but it could bring abuse with people posting on forum just to gain influence.... It would result in loads of pointless things said.... I think it has promise but it could be corrupted just way to easily

I am inclined to agree Forum Posts are away from the normal average NationStates Experience. If any weight at all is given, (I hope none is given) is should be extremely minimal.

Regional Influence in NationStates is universal to ALL nations and this is why the components of RI ranking should be based upon purely NationStates activities. Even Population could have a small Experience influence.

Suddenly we're going to be xenophobic to other types of playing. I don't see how if you're going to take out everything but what you want out of the equation, how Regional Influence won't just become a raider's bread and butter?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Population pops out as a monumentally bad idea. And posting on the forum isn't an all bad idea, I dont think it would readily be abused. Obviously spamming wouldn't help as it would just be deleted anyway. What I don't see explained is how this activity based system includes a way of reducing influence. I assume that if you go so long without posting or logging in, your influence would start to decline, but I also know the dangers of assumption.

[Unibot]

Population pops out as a monumentally bad idea. And posting on the forum isn't an all bad idea, I dont think it would readily be abused. Obviously spamming wouldn't help as it would just be deleted anyway. What I don't see explained is how this activity based system includes a way of reducing influence. I assume that if you go so long without posting or logging in, your influence would start to decline, but I also know the dangers of assumption.

Inactivity should be the main criteria for losing influence. Just logging in shouldn't increase the rate of the activity.. but it should prevent your influence from decreasing. Vacation mode should however serve as a block from the reduction.

[St Mason]

Unibot has a good point it is activity which should be a major factor. Consider that activity is what many Regions depend upon, so it should be key in RI.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Population pops out as a monumentally bad idea. And posting on the forum isn't an all bad idea, I dont think it would readily be abused. Obviously spamming wouldn't help as it would just be deleted anyway. What I don't see explained is how this activity based system includes a way of reducing influence. I assume that if you go so long without posting or logging in, your influence would start to decline, but I also know the dangers of assumption.

Inactivity should be the main criteria for losing influence. Just logging in shouldn't increase the rate of the activity.. but it should prevent your influence from decreasing. Vacation mode should however serve as a block from the reduction.

So logging in levels it, being inactive loses it, posting increases it, and vacation mode pauses it. How exactly does endorsements factor into this? The fairest way I think is that it will increase influence over time (basically the same way it does now), unless you're not logging in at all. This way it will keep some level of dynamicism in the raiding/defending game without encouraging spamming for influence. I would also like to hear what some of the feederites opinions on this are.

[St Mason]

I see it with each WA endo having a plus factor, native endos a fraction higher. For raiders and defenders it would level the playing field a great bit. All would start at a relative equal balance. raiders would have the first edge by being a bit senior to late arriving defender. How ever if They endorse a native, like all good defenders should do, then they would gain an advantage. It also would be less likely that an "out of the blue" nation would enter. for all would be minnow with very limited exceptions. Namely natives, returning, even they would be diminished based on the number of Up-dates they had been gone.

[Savaer]

I think it has a mild benefit in that Influence is supposed to measure how "native" a nation is, and nations that log in once a month are not playing much of a role in their region. Even leaving invasions aside, it would be good for active nations to see their "Influence" label rising faster than inactive ones.

How difficult it is to code depends on the details. It would be very simple to add something like: if you haven't logged in for a week or more, you don't gain Influence that update.

I recall a comment made in one the dozens of 'Kill Liberations' debates that would, in all honesty be a lot better. Increase RI build, increase costs for passwords (and axe the invisible password to prevent rampant grief as RI was initially made to do). Combined with the CTE Influence drain off it'd be a nice improvement over current. I started NS post RI development, I'm a lot more used to RI than a lot of my cohort who find it grievance. I find there little reason to absolve it, especially after hearing many of the horror stories regarding the rampancy of deletes, abuse by players, etc.

10000 Islands is one such example of why removal of RI would be bad. One invader region attempts to nail them, and now you have an overly obsessed machine that would relish at a shot to turn raider regions who actually aren't jackasses like some back then; rendering them on the same empty husk as Empire of Power. Which, I'm sure some would argue as 'justified', but in truth it's no different. It needs to stay unpermissable, improbable and purely not feasible.

On the other hand, even as one who never was around for those days, it's still not hard to see there's a bit that could use a jumpstart. Which actually makes me wonder... I'd always thought endorsements DID increase RI growth. Such was the pattern I observed while introducing Prussia Reborn to the torch.

[His Civility]

Perhaps it's worth bringing up how relative RI is to the size of the region. I'm not entirely sure how that works, really--Is RI independent of the region size, or is there only room for so much RI in each region? In the first, if everybody's active, in the WA, and has a relatively equal amount of endos, they'd all have relatively the same RI, and it'd be highish. In the second, they'd be judged relative to one another, and only the few highest of those would have higher RI, while others, because they have slightly less activity and WA involvement, would be lower despite that.

I'm not entirely sure which way it works now. Personally, I'd lean towards the first option--keeping it mostly independent of region size. After all, regional activity -does- vary a lot.

Alternatively, regional influence could be calculated compared to the activity of others in the region. Activity and endorsements above average would cause RI to climb; below average would keep it the same. That could have interesting effects--a RMB post in one of the feeder regions, for example, would have much more influence on RI than in a small region.

Worth considering.

[TAO the Wanderer]

Although I loathe Influence and have hated it since its advent, and while I am reluctant to admit I agree with Sedge (about anything), Sedge’s earliest point regarding “replace it with what?” is a valid question. I doubt Influence will be rescinded; therefore, it makes sense for us to suggest modifications and, from what I have seen already, many of you have given [violet] some good stuff for consideration.

After reading all that has been said so far, I agree that nations resurrecting after CTE that return to the previous region should reenter as Minnows … just like a new nation. The point was made that CTE is another way of saying “s/he left the game.” Another consideration supporting this view is how the game resurrects a nation – it MOVES the nation to Lazarus … and the player then must move the nation back. That is a region change. Why should the returning nation have retained any RI when it returns?

But, if I may, I would like to add a few more thoughts for proposed changes…

First, what purpose does Vacation Mode serve in these days of self-service resurrecting of nations? If ~activity~ is the basic theme of this thread, VM is anti-thematic. Should we continue to allow someone to lay comatose for 60 days? I say remove Vacation Mode and leave players with the option to either play or resurrect later.

Perhaps there should be a “shelf life” for dead founder regions. [Please note that a “dead founder” region is not the same thing as a “never-had-a-founder” region or a game region.] Once a founder CTEs, the region begins an “expiration countdown” of 28 days (just like a nation) and then it CTEs. This would allow active nations in the region to effect a region move and plan a refounding (if desired). Nations left in region when time runs out are auto-moved to TRR or randomly moved to a Feeder (like a new nation) … I would recommend the random Feeder option. Having a “shelf life” for a dead founder region will still provide a playground for raiders and new defenders to playfight in … until the time runs out.

[St Mason]

TAO the Wanderer makes some pretty radical and harsh suggestions, at least it appears so at first, however on thought it make a great deal of sense. The point is that we play the game we are the active players. A nation CTE's and we kiss them off as inactive dead weight. Founders the exact same, people who leave a region and return are very similar. RI has given them a power which they do not deserve, when you consider their actions. Those of us dedicated are the ones who pay the price.

I believe I am saying is remember us WHO PLAY the game on a regular basis.


If there is change proposed please be through address the Game Created Regions versus the Player Created Regions. They were different when the game began and are different now. the RI system eliminated the difference. restore the difference, and remember the nations collectively own the GCR and the have a right above the feeder to us the feeder to advertise their Player Regions.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

TAO, are you seriosly suggesting that a region with no founder should CTE, even if there are nations still residing in it? No no no NONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!! A thousand times NO! BAD TAO!

[Mosasauria]

I really don't think this will work.

[Sigma Fistica]

As a raider, I oppose the removal of hidden passwords.... But it does make sense when looked at 10ki standards. As for the inactivity thing.... Sometimes people go on vacation or their computer crashes and they can't get on. Maybe one level a week in the higher levels and two in the lower levels of RI....

I know this might bring up the fact of vacation mode is for this, but if you think about it.... What about those sleeper puppets, raiders and fendas make just to guard regions from raids/defense liberations.... This would hurt both raiders and fenda's, thus with equal hurt to each, it would be ok...

Speak opinions?

[St Mason]

I really don't think this will work.

The whole idea or a particular part.

The region CTE may have been misstated, I would see is as if the Founder quits the game CTE's they would have 28 days to return, if they did not then they would lose the position founder, even if they returned.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I really don't think this will work.

The whole idea or a particular part.

The region CTE may have been misstated, I would see is as if the Founder quits the game CTE's they would have 28 days to return, if they did not then they would lose the position founder, even if they returned.

Huh. This is less stupid. But I doubt it would get passed. Quite frankly, I don't care either way.

As a raider, I oppose the removal of hidden passwords.... But it does make sense when looked at 10ki standards. As for the inactivity thing.... Sometimes people go on vacation or their computer crashes and they can't get on. Maybe one level a week in the higher levels and two in the lower levels of RI....

I know this might bring up the fact of vacation mode is for this, but if you think about it.... What about those sleeper puppets, raiders and fendas make just to guard regions from raids/defense liberations.... This would hurt both raiders and fenda's, thus with equal hurt to each, it would be ok...

Speak opinions?

As a raider, I can state unequivocally that I don't care about passwords. Passwords are for the weak. Honestly I just want to see annexation implemented, as that would kill off a lot of incetive to grief. Not all, but a lot. Hell raiding might almost be constructive. Almost.

And quite frankly influence when you get down to it isn't that much of a problem for raiding or defending, at least not directly. It's really more a problem for feeders and activity in general.