[Change #1] Influence in feeders and sinkers

[Sedgistan]

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

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.

The following aspects in particular need further discussion:

• The length of time that influence is retained - whether six months is an appropriate figure.

Discussion in this thread is open to everyone. Please use this thread for discussion of this change only - off-topic posts, regional bickering and so on will be dealt with swiftly and punished for as necessary.


Edit by Ballotonia:
Update: THIS CHANGE HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED
See: viewtopic.php?p=16782385#p16782385

[Mahaj]

One question would be: what are we doing about people with current influence?

On the one hand, grandfathering them in would basically render this proposal moot.

But on the other hand, reducing them to just six months worth wouldn't accurately reflect all their contributions to the region.

Going about this proposal by resetting all influence in feeders and sinkers would be interesting, but probably not very well liked by most.

[Astarial]

I like this change, though I have some concerns.

On the plus side, it will provide a vastly leveled playing field in most GCRs, eliminating the current state of affairs that puts some nations entirely and permanently outside of banning range, allowing them to either take control of the region if they wish to, or to act as permanent fixture of a former regime and thorn in the side of a would-be reformer/couper. This is a good thing - the impossibility of permanent coups in today's game has rendered them almost meaningless.

However, I am concerned about the massive power differential it will introduce between WA and non-WA nations - at six months of acquired influence, the latter will be capped quite low. This will devastate many of the efforts to mitigate the damage from potential coups, as it will no longer be feasible to build preventative influence in a region (in order to be somewhat costly to remove) without permanently committing your WA to that nation.

The impacts of a lack of these types of middle-influence can be seen in looking at the July coup in Osiris, which has a very small number of high-influence nations, and nearly no mid-range ones (though the balance has started to shift somewhat due to explicit attempts to remedy that). Durk, in control of TDE, was able to do a great deal of damage to the region without incurring much cost to his own influence numbers. If this change goes through as proposed, that situation will repeat in any future GCR coup.

Would it be on-topic to discuss ways of keeping the impact this would have on the highest ends of the spectrum, while reducing its projected impact on the lower ends? Such sliding-scale adjustments would increase volatility (always a good thing for Gameplay), but also rein in the damage of that volatility (a good thing for the communities affected).

[Ballotonia]

Would it be on-topic to discuss ways of keeping the impact this would have on the highest ends of the spectrum, while reducing its projected impact on the lower ends? Such sliding-scale adjustments would increase volatility (always a good thing for Gameplay), but also rein in the damage of that volatility (a good thing for the communities affected).

Yep, that's on-topic. Note that the current proposal functions as a percentual cap when nations do not change (WA status or endorsement level). So a non-changing nation (always non-WA, or always having roughly the same number of endorsements) would be limited to a level of about 183 daily Influence gains. Instead of a percentual cap on Influence, we can also discuss combining this with a minimyum cap, like nations do not lose any influence if they are below the influence of a 6-month 10 endorsements WA-member nation. That way over time a non-WA nation nation would (slowly) rise to that level and stay there.

And other variations are possible, what is presented in this thread is the concept: influence to be capped in GCR's. Exact numbers and formulas are open for debate. Though we will not divulge the exact influence formulas, nor the exact details of what, if anything, we end up implementing. We do intend to make some change here though, so make sure to get your ideas and suggestions on the table.

Ballotonia

[Punk Reloaded]

As an owner of a healthy amount of influence within a feeder, I really only have a couple of concerns:

1 – On Day One of this, what happens to my influence? I have no idea how feasible this is from a code standpoint, but it seems like a fair solution would be to do something along these lines. I think my influence is around ~450. You all (game mods) should be able to tell what the max level of influence that is part of your newfangled formula is. Let’s assume it’s 300 for the sake of argument. On Day One, everyone’s current influence is weighted downward using their present influence over the current max influence using the old formula. In my case, it might be 100 or something like that. Then that new influence number is reduced equally over the course of 6 months.

TL:DR version, reset GCR influence within feeders weighted towards what they are today. Then allow the new system to kick in and folks will have to take the steps necessary to keep or increase their influence levels.

2 – I know you all don’t want to give out the formula to influence, but providing a reference guide to maintaining/increasing influence would be useful. In other words, something like “if you would like to increase your influence in the region – post more on the RMB”. Nothing specific about how much your influence increases, but a guide around how to increase it. If this is already out there in the FAQ, I apologize.

But on the whole, I like this idea. I do believe influence killed the game, especially in GCRs, and having to constantly do stuff to maintain influence levels means change will likely occur.

[The Blaatschapen]

2 – I know you all don’t want to give out the formula to influence, but providing a reference guide to maintaining/increasing influence would be useful. In other words, something like “if you would like to increase your influence in the region – post more on the RMB”. Nothing specific about how much your influence increases, but a guide around how to increase it. If this is already out there in the FAQ, I apologize.

To the best of my knowledge, the following ways are how you gain influence:
-having logged in the last seven days
-have WA endorsements. The more endorsements, the more influence you gain

The following ways are how you lose influence in a region:
-your nation is not in that region
-your nation is inactive for more than seven days
-your nation CTEd
-your nation is using WAD functions that cost influence

A Game Mod can confirm here, this I just pulled from my memory.

[Astarial]

-your nation is inactive for more than seven days

This one's not true - all the other ones are.

If this is implemented, all nations in GCRs will have a limit that has the potential to fluctuate every update. Non-WAs will all have the same limit, and it's a pretty low one (hence my thoughts on softening that end of the spectrum, and I really like Ballo's idea of having it not kick in under a certain amount of influence). For WA nations, the limit will depend on how many endorsements you have (the more endorsements, the higher the limit). If your current limit is higher than your current influence, you will gradually gain influence until you've hit it. If your current limit is lower than your current influence, you will gradually lose influence until you've hit it.

I find myself intrigued by the effects if the cap were simply dropped on everyone's lap, but I wouldn't be unduly shocked if it were gradually introduced instead, to reduce the instability such a sharp drop would cause.

[Mahaj]

-your nation is inactive for more than seven days

This one's not true - all the other ones are.

Actually it is true.

You have to log in once a week in order to gain influence.

[Astarial]

This one's not true - all the other ones are.

Actually it is true.

You have to log in once a week in order to gain influence.

Yes, that's why I didn't quote Blaat's comment about needing to log in every 7 days to gain influence.

[Mahaj]

heeee

[The Blaatschapen]

Actually it is true.

You have to log in once a week in order to gain influence.

Yes, that's why I didn't quote Blaat's comment about needing to log in every 7 days to gain influence.

Ah, okay. I seem to have mistaken that.

Thanks for the correction Asta.

[Ballotonia]

Just to confirm: Astarial is correct. Nations which haven't logged in for 7 days neither gain or lose influence for the region it is in.

Ballotonia

[Punk Reloaded]

While influence rules of today are nice, any comments on the idea(s) I mentioned with respect to this change?

[South Pacific Belschaft]

I think this is probably the right balance, in that it prevents the GCR's from remaining the near unassailable fortresses they have become without allowing the ability to destroy a ten-year old community in one bloody night of purging. When this is implemented I imagine we will be in a situation where in a well organised couper vs. badly organised government situation there is a genuine possibility of permanent regime change, but so long as the region is willing and able to fight for it's liberty it should be able to survive.

[PrussianEmpire]

This is a terrible idea!

[The Blaatschapen]

This is a terrible idea!

Can you elaborate with reasons?

[PrussianEmpire]

This is a terrible idea!

Can you elaborate with reasons?

In the event of a coup, our viziers shall be less effective at banjecting the coupers. For example, Todd Mccloud easily has enough influence to banject the entire region, making him ideal for protection of the region. However, if he were to loose that influence, his ability to defend The East Pacific would dramatically go down.

[Mahaj]

Can you elaborate with reasons?

In the event of a coup, our viziers shall be less effective at banjecting the coupers. For example, Todd Mccloud easily has enough influence to banject the entire region, making him ideal for protection of the region. However, if he were to loose that influence, his ability to defend The East Pacific would dramatically go down.

That's sort of the point.

[PrussianEmpire]

In the event of a coup, our viziers shall be less effective at banjecting the coupers. For example, Todd Mccloud easily has enough influence to banject the entire region, making him ideal for protection of the region. However, if he were to loose that influence, his ability to defend The East Pacific would dramatically go down.

That's sort of the point.

Its almost as if people are begging for the culture and structure of GCRs to be burned.

[Cormac A Stark]

I'm concerned about the impact this will have on mid-influence nations as has already been mentioned, but I'm also concerned about the impact this will have on younger GCRs (like Osiris and Balder) as well as GCRs that are more involved in military gameplay. While some GCRs such as The Pacific, The North Pacific, The West Pacific, etc., have a decent number of currently active WA nations who are willing to keep their WA nations in those regions at all times and maintain a high endorsement count -- and thus maintain high influence under this system -- other GCRs don't have such large numbers of active, WA immobile nations. In effect, I have concerns that this is going to punish Osiris and Balder for being younger than the other GCRs and punish GCRs that want to be more active in military gameplay.

I'm not sure how these concerns could be addressed from a technical perspective, but I hope they will be considered.

[All Good People]

I don't think it would punish Osiris and Balder for being younger, as the six month period would be imposed the same across all the GCR's. It should have an equalizing effect. If a particular GCR has more nations active in out-of-region activities, that's their choice, and that choice may effect their inregion security.

I presume that upon implimentation, all you need to do is lop off each nation's Influence counts from prior to the past six months. Each region would be immediately rebalanced to the 'current activity' of nations in the region. (current activity being defined as six months, or other time period that might be determined).

So nations with high Influence but low endorsements will suddenly lose alot of relative Influence to those nations that are current middling in Influence by have higher endorsements.

I like this concept. But I do need to think more on it.

[Todd McCloud]

I'm kinda echoing Punk's sentiments on this one. The OP says it's "capped". So what about nations that have a large amount of influence - will they be held to the cap on the first day of implementation, or will they experience a gradual 'step-down' every six months?

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. But, he/she is currently out of the WA, and has been for a few months now. If this thing is implemented today, does his/her influence score:

1. Go to some theoretical cap only (let's say the cap is set at 400 for whatever reason, so he/she will be at 400?)
2. Only gets the influence they gained over the last six month period, and nothing more. So let's say over the 6-month period this nation gained just 15 influence "points". Is their influence score then set back down to 15?
3. Is "capped" at when he/she first joined the region, so like if they joined in the region back in 2011, endotarted a lot, and raised their influence "points" to 30, their score would then be thirty?
   
4. Some weird mix of the above

I'm assuming the answer is 2, but I want to be sure. If it is 2, is this 6-month period retroactive to when they came into the region and had been there for six months (like, if a nation moved into TNP five months ago, he/she would be up for an adjustment come end of September), or is it retroactive to the region (like say this starts tomorrow - does all of TNP get adjusted all at once)?

Personally, I'd like to see a gradual 'step-down' method to help some of the bigger influential nations retain some of their influence for staying in the region for years upon years, etc. Something like this:

0.6(Current influence score) + 0.4(total influence score from last sum) = current influence score.

So, for the nation above, assuming they accumulate 15 influence "points" every six months, their score does the following:

606.0: Today
251.4: six months from now
110.6: one year from now
52.84: 1.5 years from now

And so on.

[Maven Raven]

To the best of my knowledge, the following ways are how you gain influence:
-having logged in the last seven days
-have WA endorsements. The more endorsements, the more influence you gain

-snip-

Just to be clear, WA endorsements are not required to gain influence, in my experiences/experiments, but the statement regarding more endorsements meaning more influence is correct. I'm not sure if this is what you intended in your statements.

I'm kinda echoing Punk's sentiments on this one. The OP says it's "capped". So what about nations that have a large amount of influence - will they be held to the cap on the first day of implementation, or will they experience a gradual 'step-down' every six months?

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. But, he/she is currently out of the WA, and has been for a few months now. If this thing is implemented today, does his/her influence score:

1. Go to some theoretical cap only (let's say the cap is set at 400 for whatever reason, so he/she will be at 400?)
2. Only gets the influence they gained over the last six month period, and nothing more. So let's say over the 6-month period this nation gained just 15 influence "points". Is their influence score then set back down to 15?
3. Is "capped" at when he/she first joined the region, so like if they joined in the region back in 2011, endotarted a lot, and raised their influence "points" to 30, their score would then be thirty?
   
4. Some weird mix of the above

I'm assuming the answer is 2, but I want to be sure. If it is 2, is this 6-month period retroactive to when they came into the region and had been there for six months (like, if a nation moved into TNP five months ago, he/she would be up for an adjustment come end of September), or is it retroactive to the region (like say this starts tomorrow - does all of TNP get adjusted all at once)?

Personally, I'd like to see a gradual 'step-down' method to help some of the bigger influential nations retain some of their influence for staying in the region for years upon years, etc. Something like this:

0.6(Current influence score) + 0.4(total influence score from last sum) = current influence score.

So, for the nation above, assuming they accumulate 15 influence "points" every six months, their score does the following:

606.0: Today
251.4: six months from now
110.6: one year from now
52.84: 1.5 years from now

And so on.

When you are talking about the "score" or "points" do you mean the SPDR on the analysis page? In my observations, going from 0-15 is faster than from 15-30, which is faster than 30-45, etc. assuming endorsement levels stay the same throughout.

[Topid]

I'm equally worried and excited about this.

Though, I have asked this several times over the while and I haven't ever got much of a sound answer IMO. The way I understand it, at any given point the influence you earned 6 months and 1 days ago will expire at update, and you will earn the influence for today to "replace" it. So that if you had a certain number of endorsements for years and never change, your influence after 6 months would stay the same because that which expires matches that which is earned.

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.

[All Good People]

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

It would seem that a sitting delegate is more likely to be one of the highest Influence nations in the region, rather than those that have sat in the region gathering Influence for years, however, the Delegate will still be the only nation spending Influence (unless you want to count potential Regional Officers). The Delegate has the advantage of gaining Influence at a higher rate in relation to other nations, but is also the only nation forced to spend Influence.

I'd expect endorsement caps in the GCR's to be lowered to compensate for the expendature of Influence, and to increase Delegate security.