[Change #1] Influence in feeders and sinkers

[Topid]

I would think that the Influence you spend will come from the total number you have, regardless of when it was earned.

Well yes, I'm sure it comes from the total. My question is do you use the influence that is about to expire or do you use the influence that you just earned. Will it be replaced that day or in six months.

[Ballotonia]

But, the part I don't understand, if that is the case and we are a delegate, which influence we spend when we eject a nation? Do we spend influence that is about to expire? Or do we spend influence that is just earned? I can see sound arguments for both.

The implementation I have in mind would equate this to one spending ones oldest gained influence.

Also, responding to earlier comments, what I have in mind for activation of this feature regarding current nations which already have enormous amounts of influence far far above what they gained in the past 6 months: a gradual drop to the level they're supposed to be at. No sudden drop, be it at feature activation time or 6 months later. (or at whatever amount of time influence will be retained, that's still up in the air)

Ballotonia

[Land filled with People]

I quite like this idea; however I think the influence cap would be better set at 9-12 months. In the GCRs that hold regular elections (those most likely to be couped) the delegate term is around 4-6 months. Thus if a delegate were to go rouge at the end of their delegacy (like Dourian did recently) it would not be difficult for them eject security council members/high endo and influence nations and the coup would be all but complete.

[Astarial]

I quite like this idea; however I think the influence cap would be better set at 9-12 months. In the GCRs that hold regular elections (those most likely to be couped) the delegate term is around 4-6 months. Thus if a delegate were to go rouge at the end of their delegacy (like Dourian did recently) it would not be difficult for them eject security council members/high endo and influence nations and the coup would be all but complete.

I disagree - Douria did not have (nor did Durk want to spend) the influence to ban the high-influence nations from Osiris. Had he tried, he would have found himself scraping the bottom of the barrel every update just to survive, and we would have had an even easier time getting the region back.

The only way a GCR will be vulnerable in the way you have described is if they don't have high endo/influence nations, or don't have enough of them, or their endorsement cap is set too low. The way to counteract this is to make sure such a body is structured in a way that avoids those problems.

[All Good People]

I agree with Asta, it is more efficient to remove low influence endorsers rather than the high influence nations themselves. Costs you less influence, and prevents them from taking the delegacy. That strategy won't change with an influence cap.

I think having the cap set at six months is fine, but I'd also be fine with it set at something like 9 - 12 months.

[Kanaia]

6-9 months seems to be appropriate, 12 is too long IMO.

[Punk Reloaded]

I like the 6 months. Gives me a few ideas.

I suspect that power dynamics will change in some ways because the high influence nations will have to earn influence more regularly.

I suspect also that endo caps will become lower as well.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

For the first scenario, let's say there's a nation in a big GCR that has an influence score of 606, which is pretty high.

grumblegrumble 23k influence going down the tubes grumblegrumble

[Wickedly evil people]

sounds fine to me.

[Frattastan II]

grumblegrumble 23k influence going down the tubes grumblegrumble

At least everyone else in this thread tries not sounding useless and spammy.

[Todd McCloud]

For the first scenario, let's say there's a nation in a big GCR that has an influence score of 606, which is pretty high.

grumblegrumble 23k influence going down the tubes grumblegrumble

What is this?

[Klaus Devestatorie]

On a related note, it'll also make the "most influence" daily ranking significantly more competitive and interesting.

[Todd McCloud]

On a related note, it'll also make the "most influence" daily ranking significantly more competitive and interesting.

Considering player-created regions are not on the table at the moment, it'll probably skew their ratings. So "most influential" will probably be filled with nations from 10KI, Europe, etc. Doesn't seem right to me, but oh well.

[Astarial]

I suspect also that endo caps will become lower as well.

I wouldn't be too sure about this one - a low endo cap will mean that if a coup does occur, the region will be highly vulnerable to purging, in particular the active and committed members of the region, in a way that isn't necessarily the case right now.

I'm sure some will pursue low(er) caps, but not all, as it's not inherently beneficial to do so.

[Great Bights Mum]

As one of the behemoths being targeted by this change, I feel it is necessary to register my disappointment. Do I need a SPDR of 936? It seems like most of the posters here are of the opinion it is a bad thing. I ought not have been as active or have endotarted so many nations. I worked too hard at it, and I was overly successful. Let me say, it will be a sad day for me when I start to see the fruits of my labor wither away.

For those who believe this change is necessary to level the playing field, allow me to suggest that players would do better to increase the degree of refinement with which they play. "King of the Hill" is a child's game. It's just not that interesting. What is engaging is the politics of the metagame. It is dynamic, sophisticated and nuanced. If players work at building their influence there, the "problem" of having players with high in-game influence disappears.

Is there a timeline for when the proposed changes will be implemented?

[Leutria]

That gives me a bit of an idea. Maybe top 5 or 10% most influential nations in the feeders/sinkers could get a badge to signify they had a lot of influence under the old system. "Influential Old Pacific Nation" or something

[McMasterdonia]

I think that Great Bights Mum makes the point nicely but I am going to make my opinion known here instead of just complaining about it in private. Perhaps I will continue with doing both

I do not like this change either. I feel that if it was to be implemented, it should be done so across the board and including all ucr regions. If a GCR community is expected to act to protect itself then I feel that the same expectation, including the negative influence effects should be applied to all regions. The only community that won't be affected by this is TRR, obviously.

It is definitely true that some nations sit around and don't contribute a lot to the game anymore and continue to hold onto massive amounts of influence. I don't think that this really is the best way to go about it, as it is also affecting a lot of older nations that have played this game for a long time and have remained involved in their respective GCR communities for the sake of keeping that community safe from coups and from external forces. In my home region, Great Bights Mum, Former English Colony, Blackshear41 etc (the list goes on) are all examples of nations that have done exactly that.

Those three examples of fine North Pacifican nations have served as regional Delegates on multiple occasions and FEC has also switched into the Delegacy on two occasions when called upon to assist in protecting the community. There are many fine examples in other GCR communities. These nations are not inactive people who simply hoard influence for their own benefit and desire for control. As a minnow Delegate, I never once felt threatened by them. They have kept playing, continued to endotart in the region and continued to be involved to get to where they are today. I'm not sure what other ways you could address the inactive nations that don't contribute losing influence, perhaps increase the speed that it drops once they don't log in for a seven day period - make it decrease at a much greater rate or even revert back to 0 if a nation ceases to exist.

Maybe I am not understanding the changes... I am happy to admit that. But it seems like this change will compromise a lot of the security practices of the game created regions. Are more coups and the potential for GCR instability going to be the boost that gameplay needs? I don't think that will be the case.

[Punk Reloaded]

I have to say, I love the changes. I’ve always hated influence because I think it makes a region way too stable. In TWP, we have a set of guardians that basically makes it impossible for “us” to be removed. Sure, you have some non-guardians with high influence in the region, but they would have to expend influence to boot a couple of us and then wouldn’t have the influence to boot the rest.

It’s nice to be part of the “cool kids”, but I’d like to see some others have a chance to try and shake things up. If influence is reset every six months, that means someone can enter the game today and in six months, have as much or more influence. That is a scary prospect, but I think it’s a fun scary.

I really don’t doubt that the “guardians” of the Pacifics today are all of a sudden going to just do nothing in-game and then fall behind newer nations gaining influence.

Asta - I do believe endocaps will trend downwards and here's why, if influence is gained via endorsements the lower the cap the less able are nations that are not the delegate or trusted "guardians" to gain influence faster than these nations. I don't really see a scenario where endocaps remain at the same level they are today much less trending upwards all things being equal.

[Former English Colony]

For the first scenario, let's say there's a nation in a big GCR that has an influence score of 606, which is pretty high.

grumblegrumble 23k influence going down the tubes grumblegrumble

*bats Hack away from her awesome influence level* Hands off boyo!
It's all a conspiracy to stop me from getting over 1000!!

Please see this announcement first.

This change would mean that any influence gained within feeder and sinker regions is capped at six months. Currently, when a nation gains influence within a region, so long as it remains within that region and doesn't spend it using regional controls, that influence will remain with it indefinitely. Influence gained over six months ago would therefore be "lost".

The intention of this change is to:

• Make influence in game-created regions more accurately reflect the recent state of the region.
• Increase the power of those that are currently engaged with the region relative to those that previously were but are no longer.
• Make changes of direction, including through coups, easier to implement.
• Ensure that communities can still be maintained within these regions

I have some issues with the assumptions that seem to have been made in the list. I feel like some of the statements contradict themselves. Plus I don't like them, but then I accept I am happy playing around only in TNP.

First, "Make changes of direction, including through coups, easier to implement." I'm just skeptical that getting someone up there as delegate will effect real change in how the GCRs are run. You have to have someone with vision and a following to make it happen. Plus, I personally disagree with this for my region. But if I accept the assumption that somehow having upheaval is good for the GCRs, all I'm really seeing happen is more severe endocaps. Given that there are already structures/governments set up in most of the GCRs, all we have to do is modify things slightly to stay in power and hold power. The Pacific (for example) won't care at all about this change. And if TNP wants to keep our stable government, we'll have to trend towards a more stringent endocap and more "trusted" nations being above it (our Security Council). Realistically, in an active GCR this won't be as much of an issue. It will be more work, but we could maintain it in a group easily enough. The real issue would be if someone in the group decides to stage a coup. This will be more tempting for them.

Second, "Increase the power of those that are currently engaged with the region relative to those that previously were but are no longer." If someone is really not in that region any longer, not playing the game any longer, than what is their WA doing continuing to exist in that region? Because in the GCR, the only influence that matters is with nations that are in the WA. And if you've kept it alive and getting endorsements, then are you not active in that region?

Third, "Ensure that communities can still be maintained within these regions". I would venture to say that most coups are not started with an eye towards maintaining the current community. If they were, then the change could be done by the current community without the need for a true coup. So I'm missing how communities will be maintained if another goal is to ensure an easier coup.

Lastly, the timeline. 6 months is not a long time to most of the people playing in the GCRs. Our region's delegates have 4 month terms, and most are elected for 2 terms (limit).

It's a bit late for me, so that's a bit jumbled most likely, apologies.

[Astarial]

Asta - I do believe endocaps will trend downwards and here's why, if influence is gained via endorsements the lower the cap the less able are nations that are not the delegate or trusted "guardians" to gain influence faster than these nations. I don't really see a scenario where endocaps remain at the same level they are today much less trending upwards all things being equal.

Nations with a lower endorsement count gain influence slower than nations with a higher endorsement count, regardless of whatever influence both nations already hold.

Under the changes, given six months without expenditure, the delegate of a GCR will be the nation with the highest influence in the region. Always. They will also be able to ban any single other nation in the region, though if they have to ban another high-influence nation theirs will drop for a time (and recover, again, within six months).

Regions without a sizable and trusted security council may feel the need to impose a strict endorsement cap, to prevent the delegate from having to spend much influence on any would-be troublemakers. But this is not a requirement, particularly not for a region like TNP, which has plenty of nations (including GBM and FEC) who could be shifted into the delegacy temporarily if more than one high-influence threat arose - or who could be given Regional Officer powers to handle a ban without needing to take the delegacy.

[Former English Colony]

I'd still agree with Punk that the endocaps will go down. Not necessarily because they *have* to, but people that are in charge are usually scared of the possibility of a coup. The uncertainty would make people much more leery of allowing a bunch of people to have high endorsement levels. For example, during a planned delegate transition from one elected delegate to the next, you would really want to make sure noone was close because even though we may have protections, the level won't be as high.

[Punk Reloaded]

I really think for long-term security of the region you’ll want to have low endocaps for most people.

Question for Ballatonia and the game admins, lets take a GCR delegate who has endorse 400+ nations and has an endocount of about 275 on day one when this process is in place. Let’s assume that this delegate endorses around 120 nations and receives back around 70 endorsements in six months time. Let’s also assum 70 WA nations left the WA/CTE so total endorsement level doesn’t change.

In the new scenario would the gross influence earned for this delegate be higher than someone who sent 250 endorsements and received back 120 in return starting from 0 when the six months began?

I’m asking this because I want to understand how the six month process will work and if there is a point where because you gathered endorsements over six months ago does that negatively impact you compared to someone who is gathering endorsements now.

I really hope this makes sense.

[Ballotonia]

I really think for long-term security of the region you’ll want to have low endocaps for most people.

Question for Ballatonia and the game admins, lets take a GCR delegate who has endorse 400+ nations and has an endocount of about 275 on day one when this process is in place. Let’s assume that this delegate endorses around 120 nations and receives back around 70 endorsements in six months time. Let’s also assum 70 WA nations left the WA/CTE so total endorsement level doesn’t change.

In the new scenario would the gross influence earned for this delegate be higher than someone who sent 250 endorsements and received back 120 in return starting from 0 when the six months began?

I’m asking this because I want to understand how the six month process will work and if there is a point where because you gathered endorsements over six months ago does that negatively impact you compared to someone who is gathering endorsements now.

I really hope this makes sense.

Since you asked for gross numbers: a nation with more endorsements will gain more influence than a nation with fewer endorsements. Net, the new nation gained in both absolute terms (the difference) and percentage-wise (starting from 0% the only way is up).

Note that what you described for the delegate is an equilibrium state: roughly the same level of endorsements for over 6 months (or however long the period will be) means the amount of unused old influence one loses equals the influence gained. It also means a delegate in that position can spend a day's worth of influence each day without really losing any influence: the influence spent would've expired anyway.

The new nation starts with 0 endorsements and (I presume) zero influence. Any action taken is a gain. Note that for a nation like that gaining a little bit of influence is a big deal: it goes from being free to eject to it having an actual (small) cost.

As for the ratio of influence between these nations after six months: the exact influence formulas are secret, which includes whether or not the formulas are linear or have some other characteristic. You're free to perform measurements in-game and try to figure things out, but I won't provide a definite answer.

Ballotonia

[Astarial]

I'd still agree with Punk that the endocaps will go down. Not necessarily because they *have* to, but people that are in charge are usually scared of the possibility of a coup. The uncertainty would make people much more leery of allowing a bunch of people to have high endorsement levels. For example, during a planned delegate transition from one elected delegate to the next, you would really want to make sure noone was close because even though we may have protections, the level won't be as high.

I really think for long-term security of the region you’ll want to have low endocaps for most people.

I still don't agree on this.

Suppose the new delegate of TNP has 500 endorsements - McM broke that number during his term, so definitely possible. There's absolutely no reason why the rest of TNP would need a 50-endo cap. Nobody has 450 endorsements hidden under a rock, and a 50-endo nation is trivially insignificant for the delegate to ban.

If you hover the security council at around 400 endos, there's really no reason at all why the cap needs to be any lower than "Don't pass the security council" - there's no such thing as a hundred-person update-raid. Sure, someone who'd hovered at 350 for six months before starting to tart up more would be painful to remove, but it would be doable, and that's what the security council is there for.

On the contrary, having watched the recent TSP and Osiris coups closely, I am firmly of the opinion that low endorsement caps increase the danger a region faces - not, perhaps, the likelihood of a coup occurring, but the sheer amount of damage one can cause to the region. Low influence nations cost very little to remove, and therefore have no protection against a rogue delegate. They bear the brunt of the bans, as a means of removing endorsements from nations who can't be banned themselves.

A low cap will mean that everyone is a low-influence nation, save a small few who are permitted to exceed it. This will decimate the middle influence ranks of nations, and it is middle-influence nations who generally make up the bulk of the relatively non-banned resistance forces.

...On that note, to get this discussion back on the topic of the specific nature of these changes... Ballo, I'm thrilled that the low ends of influence decay can be tweaked to make it less harsh, but I don't really have a good mental picture for what would be a reasonable way to fade that in. Would make sense and/or be possible to have it dependent on the delegate's influence limit or number of endorsements?

I see some merits to it varying on one of those criteria - for example, it would give everyone a real incentive to push their delegate's endorsements up, and it would accurately reflect the vastly disparate impact banning an X-influence nation has on a delegate with 100 endorsements as opposed to one with 500 endorsements.

Still have no real idea of where it should kick in, though.

[McMasterdonia]

I'd still agree with Punk that the endocaps will go down. Not necessarily because they *have* to, but people that are in charge are usually scared of the possibility of a coup. The uncertainty would make people much more leery of allowing a bunch of people to have high endorsement levels. For example, during a planned delegate transition from one elected delegate to the next, you would really want to make sure noone was close because even though we may have protections, the level won't be as high.

I really think for long-term security of the region you’ll want to have low endocaps for most people.

I still don't agree on this.

Suppose the new delegate of TNP has 500 endorsements - McM broke that number during his term, so definitely possible. There's absolutely no reason why the rest of TNP would need a 50-endo cap. Nobody has 450 endorsements hidden under a rock, and a 50-endo nation is trivially insignificant for the delegate to ban.

If you hover the security council at around 400 endos, there's really no reason at all why the cap needs to be any lower than "Don't pass the security council" - there's no such thing as a hundred-person update-raid. Sure, someone who'd hovered at 350 for six months before starting to tart up more would be painful to remove, but it would be doable, and that's what the security council is there for.

It would still require us to lower the endorsement gap and somewhat restrict the level of influence growth that new nations can get. I.e. as you said - the security council would have to remain the 10 most endorsed nations in the region and we would therefore have to lower our endorsement cap which is currently the Vice Delegate's endorsements. It is doable - all that it means however is that the endo cap goes down and we start to regulate who has influence and who doesn't more carefully. It's not generally how we have done things, but when nations who are proven to be trustworthy and active like GBM, Former English Colony and Blackshear all have their old influence go away, it doesn't leave us with many options if we do not more strictly regulate who gains the most influence over that 6 month period.

The issues with Osiris was because it has always had a very low endorsement cap - so those who had the most influence were at the top of the region, and they had a huge gap in influence compared to issue answering nations. The age of the region is also a factor. A region such as the North Pacific has a great deal of middle level influential nations who support the region, we also allow nations to endotart madly and for their influence to grow at quite a huge rate. if this were to continue under the new system, we could see more unknowns with high influence at the top, and the long serving and active members as I mentioned above with little influence. That is, if we do not enforce a more strict endorsement cap.