[Idea]UCR Influence Decay

[DWAsnia]

My idea comes from here.

I've started noticing how much influence one can accumulate over the years. There are members of Capitalist Paradise with over 400 influence. (Others in other regions have had 500+) which makes it near impossible for any sort of invasion to be feasible in a large region. Because of the insanely high levels of influence, it will become less and less possible for raiders to hold large regions.

From the link:

"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."

Is it possible to discuss now?

The pros are the same in the link:

• 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

For example, in Capitalist Paradise, one has to be a Vassal to run for Delegate, yet the influence required to become Vassal is about 200 (195) and climbing. Eventually, it will take a year or more for a nation to hit that mark. (Though, the crux of the argument doesn't like with this example. It's just an example) Therefore, I believe we're coming to a point where nothing can ever be done in regions with high influence. We need a more dynamic atmosphere.

[At Sea]

My idea comes from here.

I've started noticing how much influence one can accumulate over the years. There are members of Capitalist Paradise with over 400 influence. (Others in other regions have had 500+) which makes it near impossible for any sort of invasion to be feasible in a large region. Because of the insanely high levels of influence, it will become less and less possible for raiders to hold large regions.

From the link:

"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."

Is it possible to discuss now?

The pros are the same in the link:

• 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

For example, in Capitalist Paradise, one has to be a Vassal to run for Delegate, yet the influence required to become Vassal is about 200 (195) and climbing. Eventually, it will take a year or more for a nation to hit that mark. (Though, the crux of the argument doesn't like with this example. It's just an example) Therefore, I believe we're coming to a point where nothing can ever be done in regions with high influence. We need a more dynamic atmosphere.

We can always dream, that would be great!

[Nephmir]

Funny, I was thinking about this earlier today.

The amount of influence required in regions that are years old is ridiculous. Perhaps there should be some sort of capacity? Influence inflation stops rising after 2 years, for example. Otherwise, in a few years there'll be practically invincible founderless regions. Changes were made for the GCRs, why not the UCRs?

[Mallorea and Riva]

What do you think the cons of this idea would be?

[DWAsnia]

What do you think the cons of this idea would be?

Defenders would be mad? Just kidding. With the implementation, the amount of raids on larger regions would theoretically increase. This could (and probably would) increase the amount of flaming etc. on the RMB's of the regions. Other than that, I can't think of really anything.

[Shadow Afforess]

I personally support influence decay. I'd love to see the decay formula some day.

[Wordy]

I see no reason to change what is in place. Look at Anarchy. Invaders have had no problem with the current influence level.

[Mekhet]

I see no reason to change what is in place. Look at Anarchy. Invaders have had no problem with the current influence level.

Yup, that. I'm all for balance.

[Cormac A Stark]

I think there are a few things to look at here in regard to pros and cons.

The pro is the obvious, and is the same reasoning behind application of decay in GCRs: It would make the game more interesting. Regions that were previously seen as impervious would now be more vulnerable. It wouldn't now be out of the question to aim to empty and re-found an ancient region.

And yet that is also one of the cons, when you consider what influence was designed to do. The entire point was to create a game mechanic that would eliminate the need for griefing rules, because the game mechanic would make it more difficult for essentially the destruction of a region to be accomplished. One could reasonably argue that the longevity of a region offering it greater protection to the point of making some regions virtually immune to hostile re-founding is a feature, not a bug. Older regions have stood the test of time and deserve greater protection. The nations that have spent in some cases their entire history in those regions have earned that influence.

There are some fundamental differences between GCRs and UCRs that make influence decay much more unfair to impose upon UCR communities. First, GCRs cannot be effectively destroyed through hostile re-founding. Even with influence decay, one would be hard-pressed to empty a GCR, and re-founding it still would not be possible due to game mechanics. Second, due to the fact that nations either spawn or re-spawn in GCRs, seizure of a GCR Delegacy is not necessarily game over. Stealth tactics can be used with spawning and re-spawning nations to liberate a GCR, even months after a Delegacy is seized by an invading or rogue force. That is not possible in UCRs, and increasingly as we are seeing in Anarchy, a raid would effectively be game over if not for the very large native influence pool.

Gameplay politics aside because they don't belong in Technical, as a change to the overall game and taking into account the impact this change would have on all users, influence decay would be incredibly unfair to UCR communities in a way that it was not to GCR communities.

[The Blaatschapen]

Let's start with why influence was created:

To resolve the native question with regards to invading.

Before influence, the mods had to figure out a lot of mess. Invaders had to jump through hoops to invade and if they wanted to hold a region, they would have to be careful with how they'd go about it, or face the consequences. They had to tell the PW to the natives of the region, etc. And the mods had to decide who was a native and who wasn't in various invasions.

So influence was born, precisely to, on one hand, not have both invaders and mods be in a big mess, and on the other, to protect regions from instant emptying (which was possible but not legal for invaders pre-influence).

Now I'll ask the question again:

What would an influence decay accomplish here?

[Nephmir]

to protect regions from instant emptying

To protect regions from instant emptying. Not emptying in general. There are old regions that are impossible to empty, regardless of how fast you do it.

[Shadow Afforess]

Let's start with why influence was created:

To resolve the native question with regards to invading.

Before influence, the mods had to figure out a lot of mess. Invaders had to jump through hoops to invade and if they wanted to hold a region, they would have to be careful with how they'd go about it, or face the consequences. They had to tell the PW to the natives of the region, etc. And the mods had to decide who was a native and who wasn't in various invasions.

So influence was born, precisely to, on one hand, not have both invaders and mods be in a big mess, and on the other, to protect regions from instant emptying (which was possible but not legal for invaders pre-influence).

Now I'll ask the question again:

What would an influence decay accomplish here?

Um, who cares? Just because Influence was created to solve an original problem does not mean it worked or is still a good solution. You can wax eloquent about the idealism of influence, but it doesn't change the reality that influence has little to no effect to preventing raiders, nor solves the question of who is a native.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Let's start with why influence was created:

To resolve the native question with regards to invading.

Before influence, the mods had to figure out a lot of mess. Invaders had to jump through hoops to invade and if they wanted to hold a region, they would have to be careful with how they'd go about it, or face the consequences. They had to tell the PW to the natives of the region, etc. And the mods had to decide who was a native and who wasn't in various invasions.

So influence was born, precisely to, on one hand, not have both invaders and mods be in a big mess, and on the other, to protect regions from instant emptying (which was possible but not legal for invaders pre-influence).

Now I'll ask the question again:

What would an influence decay accomplish here?

Um, who cares? Just because Influence was created to solve an original problem does not mean it worked or is still a good solution. You can wax eloquent about the idealism of influence, but it doesn't change the reality that influence has little to no effect to preventing raiders, nor solves the question of who is a native.

Influence does prevent raiders from instantly burning regions. It also serves as quite the deterrent to attempting to empty them.
stares longingly at belgium
It is a game mechanic designed to designate native status automatically rather than through moderator intervention. I'm assuming you would be in favor of influence decay based upon your statement?

[Shadow Afforess]

Influence does prevent raiders from instantly burning regions. It also serves as quite the deterrent to attempting to empty them.
stares longingly at belgium
It is a game mechanic designed to designate native status automatically rather than through moderator intervention. I'm assuming you would be in favor of influence decay based upon your statement?

So what? Influence helps raiders just as often as it hurts them. See: Anarchy.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Influence does prevent raiders from instantly burning regions. It also serves as quite the deterrent to attempting to empty them.
stares longingly at belgium
It is a game mechanic designed to designate native status automatically rather than through moderator intervention. I'm assuming you would be in favor of influence decay based upon your statement?

So what? Influence helps raiders just as often as it hurts them. See: Anarchy.

I'm looking at Anarchy and I'm seeing a group of natives holding out against massive raider opposition thanks to their influence reserves. The question is whether or not this buildup of influence in UCRs is good or if it should be changed. If you have a larger point to make about influence itself you can make a new thread for it.

[Coraxion]

I have no special sympathy toward Anarchy, Capitalist Paradise or any other high influence nativedoms, but I generally support all things which would make game more dynamic and fast paced.

After all, if people keep their founders alive, there are not much problems for UCRs and what ever communities they may hold. Longevity of UCRs and UCR communities should be measures by looking longevity of their founders, who can opt out from the game when ever they want. Why communities and regions who are maybe Ancient and established should be rewarded, even they were not capable keep their founders alive?

Current system simply doesn't work as a encouragement for activity. It requires things made years before actual 'D-Day' (R/D Perspective), and very rare things in this game work in time perspectives of several years to future. Invulnerability of a region is possible option (as long as Executive Founder is kept Alive), and still there are influence system (in its current state) which makes rabid changes virtually impossible to do.

That is not a good thing.

[Venico]

Influence decay in UCRs would make sleeper operations very hard, requiring a WA to keep your influence building etc. I think either this would kill the practice of sleepers and stealthy raids, which is an interesting avenue of gameplay that we've already been taking blows at. OR it would take some gameplayers off the field in order to maintain influence in regions, which is also detrimental to gameplay.

Overall, against.

[BobMoran3]

Influence decay in UCRs would make sleeper operations very hard, requiring a WA to keep your influence building etc. I think either this would kill the practice of sleepers and stealthy raids, which is an interesting avenue of gameplay that we've already been taking blows at. OR it would take some gameplayers off the field in order to maintain influence in regions, which is also detrimental to gameplay.

Overall, against.

That wouldn't happen if Decay only starts after a nation has gathered a certain amount of influence, like (I think) it works in the GCR's.

[Galiantus III]

Cormac mentioned this in the development thread, and I'm all for it. Influence build-up contributed to stagnation in UCRS much the same way it did GCRs. And from an in-character perspective, influence is not something that sticks around indefinitely, anyways. It would be beneficial to gameplay if all regions were subject to influence decay.

[Lord Dominator]

I’m not sold on necessity, but I will say that any implementation should work on a rather longer time scale than in GCRs (unless we want to fully enable destroying basically anything).

[Cormactopia Prime]

I’m not sold on necessity, but I will say that any implementation should work on a rather longer time scale than in GCRs (unless we want to fully enable destroying basically anything).

Sedge has indicated his preference for pairing this with the D/A idea (if I read him correctly), in which case I'd have to assume influence decay would be introduced in Democracy regions but not Autocracy regions. If that's the case, I don't see the merit of a longer time scale. Part of the point is to make conquest (or, if you prefer, destruction) more possible and given it would only affect regions that have opted in by voluntarily choosing the Democracy classification, it shouldn't be a problem.

If, on the other hand, UCR influence decay were introduced as a stand alone thing for all UCRs, I would agree with you on the longer time scale.