[Change #1] Influence in feeders and sinkers

[Astarial]

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.

Osiris will form a model for GCRs going forward, especially any who implement low endorsement caps - they will find themselves in the same place as it, with a near-complete decimation of mid-level influence ranges.

Caps going down a little is one thing, but going to something low is another issue entirely.

[Kiwitaicho]

I fundamentally disagree with this change for all the reasons already stated but what annoys me most is that GCRs are being unfairly targeted.

If this requirement is going to be imposed - impose it systematically across both GCRs and UCRs. It's unacceptable to say that it may be imposed on UCRs later.

There are several prominent founderless UCRs that raiders would LOVE to take down if they thought there was a chance they could clear the region and password it.

Anyway, just my thoughts on it.

[Sedgistan]

The six-months figure appears to be generally accepted (by those in favour of the change). What we're looking at now is how it would actually work - is a percentage of each nation's influence removed each update, or the exact amount of influence it gained at the update 6 months prior? Related to that is the implementation of this change, and whether there would be a sudden drop or a more gradual re-balancing.

Also, we're willing to consider the suggestion brought up that low-influence nations don't lose their influence (obviously only until they get above the threshold).

EDIT by Ballotonia: added strike-out. Please don't bother discussing implementation details. However it will be implemented will remain secret: influence formulas are not public.

[All Good People]

I tend to feel a quick rebalancing would be preferable, but neither do I have any real problem with a gradual rebalance. I just wouldn't want to see a gradual effect take a long time to be fully effective, as it would add a factor of uncertainty to the change. Seems to me , in the end the overall effect is the same.

[McMasterdonia]

Also, we're willing to consider the suggestion brought up that low-influence nations don't lose their influence (obviously only until they get above the threshold).

Are you talking low influence as in low SPDR points or low as in influence ranking? And this would seem workable, although possibly difficult, as what is considered low in one feeder or sinker may not be in another.

[All Good People]

I think he's talking in reference to the Influence cap being percentual across the board, or having a threshold level at which low-influence nations would not lose their influence. Such that a non-WA nation with a level of Influence no higher than that of a WA nation with 10 endorsements over six months would not lose any of their accumulated Influence.

I don't favor establishing a threshold.

[Astarial]

I personally do favor establishing a threshhold - it'll provide non-WA nations with some protections.

I guess now that the formulas have been made public, I can elaborate more specifically - a non-WA nation will find their influence cap to be 19 SPDR - that's not a lot. It'll take a few points to eject them, certainly, but in regions like TNP where the delegate has at times seen 500 endorsements, it's pretty insignificant.

If the cap were eased off to not apply to anyone under the influence level of someone with 10 endorsements for six months, that cap would be 63 SPDR - a very significant increase, and definitely a much more costly banjection. I think that seems like a relatively good threshhold, and keeps non-WAs from having basically no protection.

(Obviously, the admins will neither confirm nor deny my numbers, and obviously if they tweak the influence gain formulas these numbers will no longer be accurate. Believe my math at your own risk.)

[Letoilenoir]

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.

Manipulation of key players is effective up to a point-they are are generally predictable, but sometimes their insecurities and sense of self-worth can result in erratic behaviour.

In order to achieve specific goals, or to meet a timescale, personal intervention is required, and then game awarded influence does, regrettably, come into play,

[Bachtendekuppen]

While this change could theoretically be applied to player-created regions too at some point in the future, that is not on the agenda at the moment - so please don't discuss it here.

I realize this might have been talked over at the summit itself and I could be very well asking a stupid question (though some other players have been raising this question and have been widely ignored here), but why this blatant discrimination between GCR's and UCR's? Aren't UCR's with their founders already way more protected then GCR's? Just asking.

[Cerian Quilor]

Because the whole reason this is being implemented is to make coups in GCRs easier.

[Ballotonia]

THIS CHANGE HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED

We won't divulge implementation details, but here are some (rough) characteristics:
- a nation which gains influence at a consistent rate will stabilize with roughly 6 months worth of influence. At that point influence expires at about the same rate as it is gained.
- spending influence at that time means one replenishes the spent influence in subsequent updates.
- non-wa or low-endorsement nations do gain, end get to keep, up to a higher level of influence. Think of, roughly, what a nation would have with 10 endorsements.
- extremely high-influence nations will see their influence drop gradually over time. No sudden changes, be it now or ~6 months from now.

Ballotonia

[Nalt]

Awesome! I am eager to see how it goes.

[Mallorea and Riva]

We won't divulge implementation details, but here are some (rough) characteristics:

While keeping that in mind...

- extremely high-influence nations will see their influence drop gradually over time. No sudden changes, be it now or ~6 months from now.

Roughly how many years will we have to wait until this change actually does anything then?

[Ballotonia]

Roughly how many years will we have to wait until this change actually does anything then?

Oh, yea of little faith

The model for this change is influence expiring after 6 months. So, roughly 6 months from now there will be no sign left at all of the current extremely high influence levels in feeders and sinkers. I don't know at what point between now and then you will regard this change as doing 'anything'. I know I can see changes happening already, but comparatively small ones which build up over the next weeks and months into really big changes.

Ballotonia

[All Good People]

And here I thought it would be implimented the 30th or the 1st

Thanks Ballo

[Nalt]

And here I thought it would be implimented the 30th or the 1st

Thanks Ballo

It was the 30th for a great many people.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Roughly how many years will we have to wait until this change actually does anything then?

Oh, yea of little faith

The model for this change is influence expiring after 6 months. So, roughly 6 months from now there will be no sign left at all of the current extremely high influence levels in feeders and sinkers. I don't know at what point between now and then you will regard this change as doing 'anything'. I know I can see changes happening already, but comparatively small ones which build up over the next weeks and months into really big changes.

Ballotonia

I'll see you in six months with pitchforks, torches, and a mob if that doesn't hold up >.>

On second thought I'll just complain loudly here.

[Punk Reloaded]

And here I thought it would be implimented the 30th or the 1st

Thanks Ballo

If they implemented it on the first...funny that 4/1 would be 6 months from that date. hehehe.


Perhaps a no influence, hourly updates, free for all (pun not intended).

[Mad Jack]

The model for this change is influence expiring after 6 months. So, roughly 6 months from now there will be no sign left at all of the current extremely high influence levels in feeders and sinkers.

This is a bad thing and should never have been introduced.

[Mad Jack]

Because the whole reason this is being implemented is to make coups in GCRs easier.

Which is a stupid reason to make a change in the game.

[Cerian Quilor]

Because the whole reason this is being implemented is to make coups in GCRs easier.

Which is a stupid reason to make a change in the game.

I can't argue with you there.

[Sedgistan]

Locking this as the change has been implemented, there's little in the way of further detail to discuss, and feedback on how it's affecting the game is not likely to be useful for at least a few months.