Regional Influence Overhaul

[Sedgistan]

The two really good ideas to come out of this thread are several pages back - CTEd nations losing influence at the same rate as if they'd left the region, and nations which haven't logged in for 7 days not gaining influence. Both of those seemed to get support from most who commented, and little substantive opposition (or none at all). They both are probably relatively simple to implement, seem logical, address a couple of small problems with influence, and don't have any negative effects of note.

The suggestions we've seen since seem to be "wouldn't it be nice" ideas that cause more problems than they solve.

If there's a major change someone wants to suggest, it's probably better off posting a new thread for it (as was done with Nai's Adaptive endorsement-based cap to Influence and my Influence & feeders suggestion), so that the discussion can be more focused.

[Tim-Opolis]

That seems like a good idea... Do we know if the two we agreed on will be implemented?

[TAO the Wanderer]

And what about an end to Vacation Mode? It is no longer needed in a game where players of able to self-serve a resurrection.

[[violet]]

The two really good ideas to come out of this thread are several pages back - CTEd nations losing influence at the same rate as if they'd left the region, and nations which haven't logged in for 7 days not gaining influence.

I plan to implement both of these very soon.

[Topid]

And what about an end to Vacation Mode? It is no longer needed in a game where players of able to self-serve a resurrection.

I very much dislike this idea.

[TAO the Wanderer]

Do you have anything more than a "Because I don't" to support your dislike? Simply nay-saying without a reason is kinda doofy, imo.

[Tim-Opolis]

I agree with TAO.... I also think that I should be commended for starting this revolution!


So... why do you not want vacation mode....

[Mousebumples]

So... why do you not want vacation mode....

I think that vacation mode is still worthwhile. If someone is going on an extended vacation or travels (and perhaps will not have internet access for whatever reason during), being able to keep their nation(s) intact and not need to resurrect their nation ....

Is there a problem with the existence of vacation mode? If not, I don't see the point of having the admins code for its removal.

[Topid]

Do you have anything more than a "Because I don't" to support your dislike? Simply nay-saying without a reason is kinda doofy, imo.

Because I rather like being able to maintain nations by logging in once every two months. I have dozens of nations on vacation mode.

They aren't going to be gaining influence so what is their problem? It makes it easy for me to maintain the regions I've founded that will CTE if my nation CTEs.

And to line up with what violet has been saying it would give people in my situation more of a reason to use a script to maintain the nations.

All in all a bad fix to a non- existent problem.

[TAO the Wanderer]

If you have a script, you wouldn't need Vacation Mode. If you were required to check back in to your nation once every month, you wouldn't need a script. If you didn't have a nation to worry about, you wouldn't need either VM or a script... until you resurrected the poor neglected thing. Honestly, your argument is hollow.

I am against VM for another reason ... if we are looking for a more active game, VM is a detriment. Why should we continue to allow a nation to remain in a coma for longer than 28 days? Sure sure ... RL happens. But what is the big deal about having to resurrect? If RL really is so demanding, why would you care about having to resurrect? We already have too many nations in this game lying about in comatose states and surfacing only once every 2 months for just long enough to reset the 60 counter. It is such a waste and a bit of an insult to the rest of us. Of course, if you want to remain in a coma, create your own region and password so you can sleep undisturbed til Max pulls the plug.

[St Mason]

One point I don't believe was included in potential change relates to nation moving in and out of region and those away for an extended time or had quit the game (CTE'd). They should be treated as newly created nations, that is what they are, start from the bottom. Handled in any other manner it a slap in the face of any and all nations who have continuously played.

[Tim-Opolis]

Do you have anything more than a "Because I don't" to support your dislike? Simply nay-saying without a reason is kinda doofy, imo.

Because I rather like being able to maintain nations by logging in once every two months. I have dozens of nations on vacation mode.

They aren't going to be gaining influence so what is their problem? It makes it easy for me to maintain the regions I've founded that will CTE if my nation CTEs.

And to line up with what violet has been saying it would give people in my situation more of a reason to use a script to maintain the nations.

All in all a bad fix to a non- existent problem.

What are you talking about.... I have about 18 sleepers in various regions that have gone from minnow to around dealmakers... Sleepers DO gain influence....

[Mousebumples]

What are you talking about.... I have about 18 sleepers in various regions that have gone from minnow to around dealmakers... Sleepers DO gain influence....

The two really good ideas to come out of this thread are several pages back - CTEd nations losing influence at the same rate as if they'd left the region, and nations which haven't logged in for 7 days not gaining influence.

I plan to implement both of these very soon.

After [violet] implements that change, nations which are not logged into at least every 7 days will no longer gain influence. Therefore, your concerns regarding influence are taken care of.

Any other reasons to object to Vacation Mode? Any other reason to make it worth the admin time needed to remove that feature from the game?

[TAO the Wanderer]

I have yet to hear any ~good~ reason for keeping VM. The best excuse so far has been "Because I like being lazy in my gameplay."

But here is another reason to eliminate VM ..
VM allows complacency and that, in turn, is a detriment. If you don't have time to look in on your nation(s) at least once in 28 days, you can do without said nation(s) until you are ready and able to play NS again. We all have RL issues to contend with and no one in this game is so important that they need a 60-day procrastination option.

Besides ... if the game admin will be taking the time to tweak other things, removing VM from the code shouldn't be a bother.

[Flibbleites]

I have yet to hear any ~good~ reason for keeping VM.

Interesting, I haven't seen a good reason to get rid of it yet.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

Do you have anything more than a "Because I don't" to support your dislike? Simply nay-saying without a reason is kinda doofy, imo.

Simply suggesting things willy-ninny is equally doofy. TAO. I think Topid's concerns are pretty valid, Vacation Mode is useful to prevent puppets from dying when you need them to continue living.. an example may be one of those puppets we keep in regions as 'ambassadors' or to be recognized as a feeder citizen, which still to this day I do not understand because the only thing we do with them is keep them alive.

[TAO the Wanderer]

I have allowed most of my ambassador nations to die ... just for that very reason, Uni.

Perhaps VM is a great idea after all. It is a wonderment for those defender or raider types that want to build up "native" credentials without actually doing anything. And there is also that beneficial ability to cry out "Griefer! Griefer!" when said VM nation is ejected from a region by an over-zealous raider or defender weeks before its wake-up call. And eliminating such a fabulous feature would have that negative effect of forcing players to have a modicum of regular activity to maintain their nations. You all have convinced me; I am a changed player.

Oh ... one more thought ... can we have VM extended to 90 days? Or maybe 180? That would make the feature even better for all concerned.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I have allowed most of my ambassador nations to die ... just for that very reason, Uni.

Perhaps VM is a great idea after all. It is a wonderment for those defender or raider types that want to build up "native" credentials without actually doing anything. And there is also that beneficial ability to cry out "Griefer! Griefer!" when said VM nation is ejected from a region by an over-zealous raider or defender weeks before its wake-up call. And eliminating such a fabulous feature would have that negative effect of forcing players to have a modicum of regular activity to maintain their nations. You all have convinced me; I am a changed player.

Oh ... one more thought ... can we have VM extended to 90 days? Or maybe 180? That would make the feature even better for all concerned.

Griefing is legal. You won't get any benefit from calling someone out on it except a general sense of moral outrage. Anyway, with the establishment that influence will not be accumulated after 7 days worth of activity, this whole discussion is now irrelevant to the thread.

Speaking of that particular change, is it possible that people could lose their influence if they aren't logging in?

[Mousebumples]

Speaking of that particular change, is it possible that people could lose their influence if they aren't logging in?

As stated by [violet] above, they are looking at making changes so that influence doesn't accumulate if you can't be bothered to login at least once per week. Similar topic, I think.

I have yet to hear any ~good~ reason for keeping VM. The best excuse so far has been "Because I like being lazy in my gameplay."

Since keeping VM requires no extra effort on the part of the admins, that should be the default choice. I believe that strong arguments are needed in order to convince the techies to make changes - as it should be. There's only so many of them, and they don't have endless amounts of free time to be working on NS. I'd rather they focus on stuff that matters (like adding a sent box for the TGs or mass TG'ing capabilities) than on stuff that people would "prefer" to have gone ... because.

Besides ... if the game admin will be taking the time to tweak other things, removing VM from the code shouldn't be a bother.

Are you familiar with the NS code? Or writing code in general? Not all code is related and intertwined. I don't see how removing an entire process/check-box from the game is directly related (code-wise) to influence accumulation and/or influence decay when a nation leaves a given region (or CTEs). They seem to be very different sorts of coding, in terms of area of the game. Therefore, I'm curious as to what sort of coding experience you have to be making such a declaration/assumption.

[Tim-Opolis]

Hmm.... I see there are points for VM and for non-VM..... I suggest maybe that they lower it to 40 days... That would make everyone happy... right? right?

[Sedgistan]

No. There's no need to change it, particularly if there's no influence gain for nations inactive for more than 7 days.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Speaking of that particular change, is it possible that people could lose their influence if they aren't logging in?

As stated by [violet] above, they are looking at making changes so that influence doesn't accumulate if you can't be bothered to login at least once per week. Similar topic, I think.

I am aware of that. Losing influence and not accumulating are two different things.

[St Mason]

So the change considered do they include the provision that if you CTE (quit the game) you start over as a minnow even when you enter your old region?

If you leave a region over more the one or two main updates you return as a much lesser RI and your growth in RI become the common growth.

And what if a founder does CTEs they return as a minnow and are now longer founder if they return to their old region?

I see these provisions as promoting Regional activities.

[Mousebumples]

So the change considered do they include the provision that if you CTE (quit the game) you start over as a minnow even when you enter your old region?

I'm not familiar with how quickly influence dissipates if you're outside your region. (I've been outside my home region for maybe one update, ever, over the past 7 years, so I can't speak to that.) Depending on how long you're CTE'd, it's a possibility. However, if your nation CTE's and you revive it 2 days later, I'd expect that you wouldn't (necessarily) be a minnow, depending on how much influence you started with.

And what if a founder does CTEs they return as a minnow and are now longer founder if they return to their old region?

I don't see why these changes would affect the founder of a given region. Of course, should the region be refounded between when the founder CTE's and returns, then, of course, there would be a new founder.

[[violet]]

I'm not familiar with how quickly influence dissipates if you're outside your region.

Very slowly at first, but steadily faster. Missing a few updates will hardly dent your Influence at all. But if you've been out a week, each update will drain your Influence a lot.