Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'influence'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The West Pacific Welcome Centre
    • Information and Introduction Centre
    • The Lounge
  • Community Governance
    • The Hall of Nations
    • Office of Foreign Affairs
  • The West Pacific Cultural Centre
    • The West Pacific Cultural Trust
    • Role Play
    • News and Media Centre
  • Maintenance & Support
    • Information Releases
    • Technical Forum Part Duex
    • Archive

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 2 results

  1. 1 JANUARY 2015 Pestarzt Begins March to the Endorsement Cap: Promising Trajectories Charted The Party's plan of legally pursuing high-influence described in a graph. The vertical dotted line marks the 6-month point at which influence roughly flatlines, assuming a consistent number of endorsements. Pestarzt is currently nearing the endorsement cap of 70, at which point he will cease to collect endorsements. The Revolutionary Party considers 140 SPDR to be the minimum amount of influence sufficient for a new delegate, and is pleased to see that the number is achievable within a six month span. It is observed that 90 endorsements reaches that number nearly two months faster than by clinging to the endorsement cap - whether or not the Party will request permission to pursue 90 as a cap for Pestarzt instead of 70 relies on political reasons and remains to be seen. The Revolution will be publishing more entertaining graphs (e.g. what would influence like if you held 500 endorsements for a decade and never used any? / what would influence look like if the Guardians took turns purging the region? / if influence didn't decay and Eli never banned anyone? ) next. Stay tuned.
  2. There are changes coming to NationStates, as was being discussed here: http://www.westpacific.org/forums/index.php?/topic/503-major-ns-shakeup/ One of the changes that will only impact Game Created Regions such as The West Pacific, will be a change in how Influence is accumulated. As it stands now, nations gain Influence through a formula that is kept secret. There are a few things we know about it, like the fact that being a member of the World Assembly and gaining endorsements are the primary drivers of gaining Influence (but not the only means). And it costs Delegates Influence to use some of their administrative capabilities. I've always despised Influence, even though I understand why it was implimented. Max has insisted that Influence is not going away, so I've sought to understand it, and make use of it. But I feel it's a poor implimentation that needs balance at the very least, and I support this coming change. Since Influence was established, the active players of GCR's have had to contend with inactive old player nations that sit around endorsements, gaining Influence for years, becoming an impediment to the dynamics of active players. And sometimes a threat to the regoinal community's Delegate. Under the current circumstances, active players could choose and support a delegate that holds with certain policies, and those old inactive nations can decide they don't like it and override the active community, returning the entire region to a life of inactivity. The coming change will place a cap on Influence. The initial idea is to place a six month cap in place. Each nation will only maintain six months worth of Influence, so those that spend years gathering Influence while they do nothing will no longer control the active life of a GCR. I support activity, and this coming change will also support activity. The thread on this can be found on the NS forums at: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=258990 From the thread you can see that the six month figure is generally accepted, and I agree, although I'm willing to accept an alternative such as 9 or 12 months. There are some sour grapes in that thread, almost exclusively from nations in TNP, where they like to maintain that huge pool of Influence to control their region from the sidelines. I don't agree, but respect TNP's policies for their own region. It appears our friends in The Pacific have taken a step in preparation for this change by lowering their endorsement cap from 20 down to 10. They will want to take this action to help preserve the dominance of the Delegate and appointed leadership. I don't know that lowering the cap from 20 is neccesitated, as Influence is relative within a region, so I don't see alot of impact from bringing it down to ten. But again, I respect and understand their policy and reasoning. From my perspective of the Delegacy here in TWP, we have maintained a system of Guardians that provides a group of highly endorsed, high Influence nations that are prepared to protect the Delegacy. Because we have this level of active protection, the Delegate can be a high influence Minnow, and be secure and successful. (Although, my experience from two feeder delegacies says, Vassal level Influence or higher is preferable for the Delegate) I am considering what adjustments I should make in TWP in the endorsement cap, given the coming change. I believe that as The Pacific has already shown (and is discussed on the NS thread) a lowering of endorsement caps can be expected across the GCR's in general. The capping of Influence will reduce the relative Influence levels of older nations to newer nations, and will reward active nations over inactive nations. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts, ideas, comments and input on this for TWP. At this point, I am considering the creation of a multi-tier endorsement cap. Perhaps two or three endorsement levels. I haven't considered numeric levels at all yet. Just the general concept. - A low endorsement cap for WA nations that have not endorsed the Delegate. (A Delegate endorses almost all WA's in the region, which helps each of them gain Influence. When they fail to return the endorsement, it is an Influence drain upon the Delegate...the only nation in the region required to spend Influence) - A higher endorsement cap for WA nations that are endorsing the Delegate - Perhaps a third, higher cap, for nations that participate in regional activities (government, military, etc). Activity should be encouraged, and perhaps this would be an additional incentive. I want to support those that support TWP. - The Guardians would continue to be cap exempt. I would also consider adding non-Guardian cap exemptions for trusted active nations and those that have contributed to TWP through it's history. This would also compensate for an otherwise lowered endorsement cap. The floor is open for your thoughts.....
×
×
  • Create New...